[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON', SC 29405-2413 property of CSC Libr&Y HURRICANE EA lCULIT0I )N STUDYwN3at Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 'I DECEMBER 1987 -The preparation of this report was primarily supported by a grant from the U.S. Office of Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and the Florida Office of Coastal :Management, Department of Environmental Regulation throagh the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. Supplemental funding was provided by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management. .I- Ii _T sr CN TABLE OF CONTENTS PART PAGE # Introduction ..................................... i I. Threat and Methodologies ......................... I-1 A. Hazard Analysis Update ...................... I-1 B. Methodologies ................................ 1-2 1. Estimates of Population.... ........... 1-2 2. Behavioral data ............1.......... I-3 3. Shelter Inventory ...... ................ 1-5 4. Pre-Eye Landfall Hazard Times- Point Inundation ............................. 1-5 5. Pre-Eye Landfall Hazard Times - Gale Force Winds ............................ 1-5 6. Roadway Inundation Due to Rainfall ...... 1-5 7. Evacuation Route Capacities .............-5 8. Route Assignments ....................... 1-6 9. Shelter Assignments ..... ............... i-6 10. Loadings, Clearance, and Evacuation Times .................................. 1-7 11. 1991 Estimates .......................... 1-7 1I. County Plans ..................................... A. Collier ......................................I1-A (See County Table of Contents) B. Lee ..........................................I1-B C. Charlotte ....................................I1-C D. Sarasota .....................................1I-B E. Hendry .......................................II-E F. 1 Glades .......................................II-F III. Regional Summary ..................... ............III-1 Background Traffic, Present and 1991 .............111-1 Intercounty Loadings ...........................111-5 IV. Critique and Elaboration ......................... IV-1 Behavior - Destination Change..................... TV-1 Behavior - Response Times ...... .................. IV-3 Shelters and Shelter Space ....................... IV-5 Roadways Level of Service ......V-. Mobile Homes Park Self Sufficiency ............... IV-8 Shelter Impacts ................................ IV-8 Evacuation Time Impacts ........................ IV-9 Early Tourist Evacuation .....................I.... V-10 Survey Data and Use; The Feedback Loop ........... IV-11 Impact of Evacuation Orders ..................... IV-12 V. Technical Appendix ............................... (See Technical Appendix Table of Contents) LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES MAP PACE # Collier County Maps Lee County Maps Charlotte County Maps Sarasota County Maps Hendry County Maps Glades County Maps Intercounty Trip Volumes Intercounty Routes and Capacities See Collier County Section See Lee County Section See Charlotte County Section See Sarasota County Section See Hendry County Section See Glades County Section -~. III-4 .; l 1III-7 TABLE SUBJECT PAGE # Behavioral. Survey Results within the 11 Planning Regions of Florida Collier County Tables See ColliE Lee County Tables See Lee C4 Charlotte County Tables See Charl( Sarasota County Tables See Saras( Hendry County Tables See Hendr Glades County Tables See Glade: Intercounty Travel, 1987, 1991 Route Loadings Multi-County Vehicle Loadings Single County Loading Times Multi-County Loading Times Multi-County Loading Times, with Background Traffic Revised Loadings, 34% of Evacuees Leaving County Revised Single County Loading Times Rlevised Multi-County Loading Times Decision Times, Severe and Two-Hour Responses Unmet Incounty-Public or Private Shelter Demand Reduced Space Option Roadway Service Level Reductions, Select Links Public Shelter Space without Mobile Home Residents Reduction in Loaiding Times, Mobile Home On- ,Site Sheltering Increase in Shelter Space, without Hotel/Motel Residents Decrease in Evacuation Times, no Hotel/Motel Residents I-4 er County Section ounty Section otte County Section ota County Section y County Section s County Section III-1 III-2 III-5 III-6 III-8 III-9 IV-1 IV-2 IV-2 IV-4 IV-6 - - IV-6 IV-8 IV-9 IV-9 IV-10 IV-l 1 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP CHAIRMAN ......Commissioner Joseph A. Tringali VICE CHAIRMAN ......Commissioner John B. Coffey SECRETARY ......Commissioner Anne Goodnight 'TREASURER ......Commissioner Donald Slisher CHARLOTTE COUNTY ICommissioner Richard Holt Commissioner Joseph Tringali NCouncilwoman Phyllis Smith Mr. D. Michael Singletary Mr. Thoma's D'Andrea ICOLLIER COUNTY Commissioner Anne Goodnight Commissioner John A. Pistor 3Councilman William F. Bledsoe Mr. Stanley W. Hole Ms. B. Henderson-Cawley IGLADES CO UNTY Commissioner W.W. Busbee ,Commissioner John Coffey Commissioner Harry Ogletree HENDRY COUNTY Commissioner Donald Pratt Commissiobner Chuck Hall Mr., g. L. Bennett Mayor-Thomas A. Smith LEE COUNTY Commissioner Donald Slisher Commissioner Porter Goss Councilman Fred Valtin Mr. Richard Holzinger Mr. Gordon Meiers SARASOTA COUNTY Commissioner Jerry Hente Commissioner Jeanne McElmurray Commissioner Rita J. Roehr Mr. Douglas James SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF WAYNE E. DALTRY ......EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DAVID Y. BURR ......PLANNING DIRECTOR Glen R. Ahlert Al Barrett Betty Bursiek Rick Carpenter Becky Crawford Terrence S. Dolan .Nancy A. Furdell :'Susan Gill Glenn Heath Celeste Holloway William B. Horner David M. Loveland. Daniel J. Mischo James E. Newton II Rachel Reith .'Michael Streets Daniel L. Trescott . .. I HURRICANE EVACUATION STUDY UPDATE 1987 Introduction The purpose of this update is to refine and improve upon the work initially performed in the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan_ SWFRPC, 1982, and the Hurricane Evacuation Plan, Update 82, m SWFRPC, 1984. The major change in this update is a reorganization of salient information on a county-by-county basis, to be more useful to local emergency management officials and to assist local governments in 'meeting their mandates in accordance with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. I .The Plan is organized in the following manner PART I. Threat and Methodologies I, !:A Hurricane is a regional threat; as such, it will affect more than one locality. This section will update the work analyzing hurricanes performed in 1981. This section will also summarize the methodologies in use for each step of the evacuation study, with emphasis on their application to local government. PART II. County Studies Each of the six counties will be assessed as to the degree I. the hurricane threat affect them. Vulnerability zone will be reassessed, population data will be updated and forecasted to 1991, behavioral information will be applied, shelter data updated, evacuation routes reassessed, and clearance times will be calculated. i PART iii. Regional Summary The County data will be summarized for their relevance-t~ inter-county action. Specific analysis will be performed on I ' inter-county travel volume and routes. PART IV. Critique Various shortcomings or variations in current planning ' activity will be assessed. Alternatives in priorities will be examined as to whether different approaches, assumptions, or actions will improve evacuation times. In addition to the four parts above, these will be a technical i appendix containing analyses on: (1) public safety policies and concepts of operations. I (2) assessment of potential highway improvements to improve clearance times, including traffic control points and debris removal resource storage points (3) assessment of relatively low cost shelter improvements, and (4) the impact on evacuation of drawbridge openings (a) drawbridge openings, (b) high profile, trailer hauling, and RV vehicles, and (c) tourists, (d) route control. There are icertain high interest aspects of evacuations which the different county chapters and regional summary assume as actions. These include the response of tourists, the impact on highways of "truck" traffic, which includes high profile and recreational vehicles, and the imnpact of rainfall and hurricane wind and flood waters on road capacities. The county sections, regional summary, and critique sections also address the subject of mobilization times, background traffic, and "daylight" versus "midnight' highway activity. Future updates will examine further salient alternatives affecting successful evacuation. I i I I I COLLIER COUNTY - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page # Hurricane Vulnerability .............................. II-A-1 Recent Storm History ............................T.....--A-4 Affected Population ............................T......I-A--9 Motor Vehicles .............:.........................TI-A-14 Shelters .............................................I-A-]5 Routes ................................................ II-A-19 Clearance Times ......................................TI-A-24 199] Forecasts .......................................T.TII-A-32 APPENDIX - Hazard Times ............... .......... ....1 LIST OF MAPS Map Page # 1. SLOSH Model Storm History Points .................. TI-A-2 2. Maximum Areas Subject to Flooding .................II-A-3 3. Socio-Economic Zones .............................. I--A-l10 4. Evacuation Zones ..................................II-A--ll. r)5. Red Cross Managed Public Shelter Locations ........ II-A-16 6. Evacuation Routes .................................. IT-A-23 7. Routes Subject to Rainfall Flooding ............... II-A-25 LIST OF TABLES Table Page # Il1. Predicted Coastal Storm Surges .................... II-A-4 m2. lHurricane Simulated by Surge Model .................II-A-5 3. Selected Storm Tracks ............................. II-A-8 4. 1987 Housing UTnits ................................ II-A-12 | ~5. Population Estimates .............................. II-A-13 6. Vehicle Estimates ................................. TI-A-15 7. Shelters .......................................... TI-A--]7 * R8. Public Shelter Capacity ...........................TI-A-17 * i 9. Population Displacement Ratio .....................II-A-18 10. Shelter Satisfaction ..............................I-A-19T 11. Evacuation Route Capacity Calculation .............I-A-20 37 12. Pre-Landfall Flood Conditions .....................II-A-26 13. Shelter Designations and Options .................. II-A-26 14. Time to Clear ..................................... II-A-28 | *15. Ultimate Constricting Route ....................... II-A-29 16. County Exiting Rou tes .I............................I-A-30 17. Total Evacuation Time ................ ............... II-A-3l *s 018. Housing Units, 1991 ...............................II--A-33 * l19. Population Estimates, 1991 ........................IT-A-32 20. Motor Vehicle Estimates, 1991 ...................... II-A-34 *9 21. Refvised Capacities .......................II-A-35 22. Shelter Satisfactions, 1991 ...................... II-A-36 23. Revised Time to Clear, 1991 .......................II-A-36 24. Exiting Routes, 1991 ..............................It-A-38 25. Total Time, 1991 II-A-39 ~~................ ..!IA3 COLLIER COUNTY NATURAL DISASTER PLAN (Hurricanes) 119J-5.012(2) (e) (i)I HURRICANE VULNERABILITY The hurricane vulnerability of Collier County has been analyzed using a numerical stormn surge prediction model known as SLOSH, short for Sea, Lake, and overland Surges from Hurricanes. This model is described in detail in the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan-, 1981-82, prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional I ~Planning Council; as well as A Storm -Surgre Atlas for Southwest Florida, prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Undated, @1983). .These reports analyzed some 187 separate storms for their poten-tial -impact on Southwest I ~Florida, including Collier County. Both reports provide an assessment of methodologies and provide assumptions that can act towards increasing or decreasing forecast flood and wind Conditions. However, in summary, the following assumptions can (1) Landfalling storms provide the worst flooding potential (2) Flooding will be worse south of the eye of the hurricane I ~(3) Wind conditions making roads unsafe for travel will arrive well before the eye of the hurricane, and usually before * ~~flood waters inundate evacuation routes (4) Storm landfall prediction is not an exact science. Any approaching storm has the capacity to strengthen or veer, decreasing or increasing the flooding and surge potential of * ~The SLOSH model used thirteen points in Collier County for time * ~history analysis. These points are depicted on Map 1. The _ greatest heighft of stormwaters for each category storm for ewch- point are summarized in Table I. The SLOSH model also provided maps of the flooding that may be expected in Collier County. The 187 different simulations have been summarized by flood category, and a zone for each category * ~has been created depicting the maximum extent of flooding resulting from all of the storms of that category. The five 3 ~zones thus created are depicted on Map 2. II-A-1 A STORM HISTORY POINTS 1 ClIOKOLOSKEE ISLAND V .l. 1 2 CARNESTOWN . // 2 3 ROYAL PALM HAMMOCK 20 4 GOODLAND S MARCO ISLAND 6 MARCO BRIDGE ) 7 ISLE OF CAPRI _ 8 NAPLES MANOR 9 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER 10 NAPLES 11 PINE RIDGE ' 12 NAPLES PARK - 13 BONITA SPRINGS 20 st\ IOi29aB I I 100 I * 5 O I 2 3 4 MILES \{e SWFRPC RNC ; H 5 FOOT CONTOUR LINES MAP I1 COLLIER COUNTY SLOSH MODEL STORM HISTORY POINTS Il-A-2 2 C LEGEND NOTE: FLOOD HEIGHTS AT SHORELINE UP TO 8 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL(MSL) UP TO 10 FEET ABOVE MSL m2 UP TO 16 FEET l; IABOVE MSL 1 3 g UP TO 17 FEET ABOV I UP TO 18 FEET ABOV I O 2 3 4 5 E MSL iE MSL MAP2 -- COLLIER COUNTY MAXIMUM AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOODING BY STORM CATEGORY SWFRPC 87-RNC II-A-3 ! TABLE 1 I PREDICTED COASTAL STORM SURGES SIMULATED BY SLOSH MODEL. LANDFALLING STORMS (If a point is over water, surge is reported in feet of I flooding above msl; if a point is on land, surge is reported in feet above land at that point)* ELEVATION STORM CATEGORY GRID POINT OF POINT 1 2 3 4 5 Chokoloskee Island 4 6 8 14 15 15 Carnestown 5 4 6 11 15 15 Royal Palm 4 6.- 6 11 14 16 -- Goodland 3 6 8 10 13 15i Marco Island 3 5 5 8 10 10 Marco Bridge 4 - 4 7 9.5 9 Isle of Capri 3 2 5 9 11 11 Naples Manor 5 - 4 9 11 12 EOC 5 - 3 7 10 11 Naples 8 - - 4 7 7 Pine Ridge 8 - - 5 8 8 Naples Park 10 - - 3 6.5 5 Bonita Shores 2 6 8 12 15 15 Although storms cannot be accurately forecast in regard to storm behavior, the 187 simulations did provide insights into the differences in pre-landfall flooding for landfalling, paralle.ling, and crossing storms. These differences are summarized in Table 2 for hurricane eye location and points of worst impact. Table 3 summarizes the nature of flood and wind variation based on whether the storm is landfalling, crossing, or paralleling. Appendix 1 summarizes the pre-eye landfall hazard times that the County may experience. Recent Storm History Hurricane Donna was the last hurricane to affect Collier County to any significant degree. At the time the hurricane hit, the County's population was 12,000, concentrated primarily in Naples, Immokalee and Everglades City. Except for the Immokalee area, the greater part of the County's inhabited areas were inundated by flood waters. Damage in Everglades City was so great that plans to relocate the County seat were.finalized, and relocation was completed in the following year. Hurricane Alberto was a near miss for the County. This storm formed off the Southwest Florida Coast in 1982, but decreased in intensity to such a degree that it was a tropical depression when it made landfall. However, its actions mimicked those predicted by a hurricane by the SLOSH model to the extent that high waters again inundated the Southeast Collier Shoreline, submerging Everglades City below approximately three feet of seawater for several hours. There was, however, no surge force resulting in significant damage to property. 3 II-A-4 I TABLE 2 HURRICANES SIMULATED BY NUMERICAL STORM SURGE PREDICTION MODEL L C O A C T I II M A E 0 T T G LANDFALL/EXITING POINT D Y I O : OR AREA RECEIVING E P 0 R : CLOSEST APPROACH MAXIMUM SURGE/WINDS L E N Y SL L 5sS 1 :North end. Ft. .Myers Beach Naples/Bonita 2 'North 3 North 4 :North 5 North 1 :South 2 'South 3 'South 4 'South 5 :South (Lee County) end, Ft. Myers Beach (Lee County) end, Ft. Myers Beach (Lee County) end, Ft. Myers Beach (Lee County) end, Ft. Myers Beach (Lee County) end, Ft. Myers Beach (Lee County) end, Ft. Myers Beach (Lee County) end, Ft. Myers Beach (Lee County) end, Ft. Myers Beach (Lee County) end, Ft. Myers Beach (Lee County) Shores Naples/Bonita Shores Naples/Bonita Shores Naples/Bonita Shores Naples/Bonita Shores Marco Island/ Isles of Capri Marco Island/ Isles of Capri Marco Island/ Isles of Capri Marco Island/ Isles of Capri Marco Island/ Isles of Capri SL L SSS SR L 5SS SR L 5SS SR L 5SS SL L o10SS SL L 10SS SL L 10SS SL L 10SS SL L IOSS I I I I I; SL L 15SS SL L 15SS SL L 15SS SL L 15SS SL L 15SS SL L 20SS SL L 20SS SL L 20SS SL L 20SS SL L 20SS 1 :Bonita Beach (Lee County) 2 :Bonita Beach (Lee County) 3 :Bonita Beach (Lee County) 4 :Bonita Beach (Lee County) 5 'Bonita Beach (Lee County) 1 :Bonita Springs (Lee County) 2 :Bonita Springs (Lee County) 3 Bonita Springs (Lee County) 4 :Bonita Springs (Lee County) 5 Bonita Springs (Lee County) Goodland Goodland Goodland Goodland Goodland Goodland Goodland Goodland Goodlandi Goodland KEY: SL - SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) Model L - Landfalling Hurricane C - Crossing Hurricane (Exiting Hurricane) P - Paralleling Hurricane SS - South of Sanibel Island NS - North of Sanibel Island II-A-5 I TABLE 2 (Continued) HURRICANES SIMULATED BY NUMERICAL STORM SURGE PREDICTION MODEL I L C : O A : C T : A E : T T G : Y I O : P O R : E N Y : M 0 D E L LANDFALL/EXITING POINT OR CLOSEST APPROACH AREA RECEIVING MAXIMUM SURGE/WINDS SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL L 25SS L 25SS L 25SS L 25SS L 25SS L 30SS L 30SS L 30SS L 30SS L. 30SS L 35SS L 35SS L 35SS L 35SS L 35SS L 40SS L 40SS L 4OSS L 40SS L 40SS L 45SS L 45SS L 45SS L 45SS L 45SS 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 1 2 3 : 4 : 5 Bonita Shores' Bonita Shores ... Bonita Shores Bonita Shores Bonita Shores Royal Palm Royal Palm Royal Palm Royal Palm Royal Palm Naples Naples Naples Naples Naples Royal Palm Royal Palm Royal Palm Royal Palm Royal Palm Naples Manor Naples Manor Naples Manor Naples Manor Naples Manor Hurricane Pass Hurricane Pass Hurricane Pass Hurricane Pass Hurricane Pass Chokoloskee Chokoloskee Chokoloskee. Chokoloskee Chokoloskee Carnestown Carnestown Carnestown Carnestown Carnestown Chokoloskee Chokoloskee Chokoloskee Chokoloskee Chokoloskee Island Island Island Island Island I I Island Island Island Island Island I : Marco Island 2 : Marco Island 3 : Marco Island 4 : Marco Island 5 ' Marco Island ! I - KEY: SL - SLOSHI (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from L - Landfalling Hurricane C - Crossing Hurricane (Exiting Hurricane) P - Paralleling Hurricane SS - South of Sanibel Island NS - North of Sanibel Island II-A-6 I I I I I TABLE 2 (Continuedl HURRICANES SIMULATED BY NUMERICAL STORM SURGE PREDICTION MODEL L C O A C T A E T T G Y I O P O R E N Y M 0 D E L : LANDFALL/EXITING POINT AREA RECEIVING MAXIMUM SURGE/WINDS II II OR CLOSEST APPROACH I I 1 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 1 : 2 : 3 1 : SL L SL L SL L SL L SL L SL P SL P SL P SL P SL P SL P O S 0 S O S 0 S O S 15ES 15ES 15ES 0 S 0 S O S Sanibel Island Sanibel Island Sanibel Island Sanibel Island Sanibel Island Everglades City Everglades City Everglades City Bonita Shores Bonita Shores Bonita Shores Bonita Shores Bonita Shores Chokoloskee Island Chokoloskee Island Chokoloskee Island Goodland Goodland Goodland 1 : 15 mi. west of Sanibel 2 : 15 mi. west of Sanibel 3 : 15 mi. west of Sanibel KEY: SL - L C - p - ES - WS- SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Landfalling Hurricane Crossing Hurricane (Exiting Hurricane) Paralleling Hurricane East of Sanibel Island West of Sanibel Island - . II-A-7 I I TABLE 3 SELECTED STORM TRACTS BY STORM CTRARACTERISTICS CATEGORY AND TYPE I STORM TRACK STORM TRACK STORM CHARACTERISICS I I 45SS-L-1 25SS-L-1 5SS-L-1 15NS-L-1 35NS-L-1 55NS-L-1 S(3) Wi0) S(3) W(I) S(2) W(1) 5(2) S(2) 5(l) 15ES-P-- 0 S-P-I 3OWS-P-1 5(2) S(2) S(2) I(3) S(3) S(3) 5(1) W(l) W(1) w(1) W(2) W(l) 15ES-P-2 0 s'P-2. 30WS-P-2 G60WS-FP-2 I 45S5-L-2 25SS-L-2 5SS-L-2 L5NS-L-2 35NS-L-2 55NS-L-2 S(3) 5(3) S(3) 5(2) 5(2) S(2) W(2) W(2) W(2) W(I) W(1) 15ES-P-3 0 S-P-3 30WS-P-3 50WS-P-3 5(3) 5(4) S(3) S(2) 5(1) V(1) 5(1) W(2) W(3) W(2) W(1) I 45SS-C-1 i5SS-C-1 15NS-C-1 45SS-L-3 25SS-L-3 5SS-L-3 15NS-L-3 35NS-L-3 55NS-L-3 75NS-L-3 S (4) 5(4) S(3) S(3) S(3) S(3) S(2) W(3) W(3) W(2) W(2) W(1) W(I) 45SS-C-2 155-C-2 15NS-C-2 45SS--C-3 155S-C-3 15NS-C-3 S(2) S(2) 5(1) S(2) S(3) S(2) W(1) W(1) W(2) w(2) W(I) KEY: SS - NS - ES - WS - 5- w South of Sanibel North of Sanibel East of Sanibel West of Sanibel Storm Surge Wind (over 40 mph) C- Landfalling Parallel Crossing ,e I (1) - (2) - (3) - Category I Category 2 Category 3 II-A-8 I I 1 I I I I Hurricane Floyd provided the area a scare on October 16, 1987. 3 ~However,~ it veered due east before the County received any impacts beyond gale force wind gusts and somewhat higher tides. A voluntary evacuation order put approximately 600 persons in public shelters and an unknown number in area hotels, homes, and out of region locations. 3 ~Affected Population Each zone depicted an Map 2 encompasses large segments of the m ~County population. Each one h-as a certain degree of 3 ~Vulnerability to the threat of hurri,cane induced flooding. - ~Category I zones have the most repeated 'threat potential, whereas it is highly unlikely (but the potentiail exists) that category 5 areas wIill need to evacuate during the comprehensive plan horizon. * ~Each zone as drafted mimaics the coastline. Geographically, 3 ~however, these zones are too cumbersome to assess the timing and shelter needs of the population. Consequently, in association with the Collier County Planning Department, new subzones were 3 ~created consistent with the socio-economic blocks used by the * ~Department. These are depicted in Map 3. These sub-zones, however, are not particularly associated with neighborhood or 3 ~community identities. Consequently, for identification purposes, * I sub-zones are reaggregated into communities which have commonly understood names. These commuDities are depicted on Map 4 3 ~The first element in preparing an estimate of County population is to estimate dwelling units, and dwelling unit types. Using * Planning Department information of the County and the City o f Naples, supplemented by information on RV Parks from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, it is estimated that there are 84,871 dwellings in the county. This estimate * includes conventional housing, mobile homes, and transitional I ~housing such as inhabited travel trailers, and hotel and motel-~ units. The greatest concentration of thes~e, 55.l?% are located -in- the Category I Zone. Table 4 provides the estimate of dwelling units in the County by Flood zone and by community name. Using the housing unit estimate, a population estimate is then 3 ~made. Two additional factors, however, are needed: persons per household, and vacancy rate.. Persons per household were estimated to be a standard 2.4 in Cboll'ier County, regardless of 3 ~unit. Whereas this assumption has inaccuracies, the end result * ~probably does not differ significantly from a more detailed analysis. More detailed analysis, however, is required to assess E ~thie impact of vacancy rates for unit types, since different unit types have different vulnerability to flood or wind hazards. * Using a survey estimate prepared by telephone survey in October 1987, two estimates of seasonal vacancy for Southwest Florida 3 ~were prepared. These are as follows- 11-A-9 -1b .~ L i 1 f, 'II, -_.- I -_--_ I - K - ___ -* .. 0*. -. 0* ,_. iIz_ I _ x I-i _A- * IL _ _ I- -u--- 7-__- i_-I -ml - / * r I<.?__ L _ - -- -St..-- . - - _ / / II I . ? -i . X COLLIER COUNTY H H I I I .... " I I * SCIOMAP 3 1 S CIOECONOMIC ZONES - - - -IIII -iIii - - - - m - - NORTHEAST COUNTY 0 CORKSCREW/IMMOKALEE GOLDEN GATE/SUNNYLAND: 3 NORTH NAPLES/ GOLDEN GATE 3 I I C 0 I FAKAHATCHEE/COPELAND 2 I I m B- IG CYPRESS I 9 -NO I ,: 2: 3:4 MILES SWFRPC RNC I I I I l EVERGLADES CITY/ CHOKOLOSKEE -I - MAP 4 COLLIER COUNTY EVACUATION ZONES II-A-11 TABLE 4 COLLIER COUNTY - 1987 HOUSING UNITS Storm Residential Mobile Rome/ Multi- lotel/ Category Zone Single-Family Rec. Vehicle Family Duplex Motel Total I Everglades City/Chokoloskee 235 221 15 8 29 508 1 Goodland/Ten Thousand Islands 124 290 45 44 197 700 1 Htenderson Creek 2,217 1,852 5,416 36 2,046 11,567 1 South Naples/Rookery Bay 3,936 1,590 5,861 613 325 12,325 1 Naples Beaches 7,439 947 9,543 723 3,004 21,656 TOTAL ZONE 1 13,951 4,900 20,880 1,424 5,601 46,756 2 East Naples 3,080 960 4,952 882 269 10,143 2 Fakahatchee/Copeland 291 771 186 0 0 1,248 H TOTAL ZONE 2 3,371 1,731 5,138 882 269 11,391 m TOTALS CATEGORY 1 + 2 17,322 6,631 26,018 2,306 5,870 58,147 9 3 North Naples/Golden Gate 9,069 1,277 6,742 1,334 125 18,547 3 Golden Gate/Sunnyland 1,550 100 7 0 0 1,657 TOTAL ZONE 3 10,619 1,377 6,749 .1,334 125 20,204 TOTALS CATEGORY I - 3 27,941 8,008 32,767 3,640 5,995 78,351 4 Corkscrew/Immokalee 1,293 1,727 1,924 132 60 5,136 TOTAL . ZONE 4 1,293 1,727 1,924 132 60 5,136 TOTALS CATEGORY I - 4 29,234 9,735 34,691 3,772 6,055 83,487 5 Northeast County 564 168 282 61 41 1,116 5 Big Cypress 109 84 75 0 0 268 TOTAL ZONE 5 1 673 252 357 61 41 1,384 TOTALS CATEGORY 1 - 5 129,907 9,987 35,048 3,833 6,096 84,871 _ m_ mm m mmm _m _m Unit Type Seasonal Occupancy Rates July November Single-Family Unit 100% 100% Apartment 70.0 78.0 Condominium (Conventional) 51.0 64.0 Mobile Home 43.0 75.0 Travel Trailer 18.0 41.0 Motel/Hlotel 54.0 63.0 From these estimates, Collier County is estimated in 1987 to contain an average 136,599 persons in July and 160,154 persons at the start of November. This is summarized by community in Table 5. Numerically, the greatest seasonality occurs in Hurricane Category Zone 1, which has 76,013 persons in July and 89,699 in November, an increase of 18.0%. TABLE 5 COLLIER COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION ZONES Storm Population Estimate Category Zone July November I Everglades City/ 799 1,020 Chokoloskee Goodland/Ten Thousand 937 1,265 Islands Hfenderson Creek; 16,749 20,976 South Naples/ Rookery Bay 20,511 24,177 Naples Beaches 37,017 42,261 Mobile Homes, not otherwise 3,968 8,425 included in the above flood prone areas (Category 2-5 Areas) SUBTOTAL 79,981 98,124 2 East Naples 17,309 20,069 Fakahatchee/Copeland 1,551 2,296 Mobile Homes, not otherwise 2,618 5,558 included in the above flood prone areas (Category 3-5 Areas) NEW EVACUEES 17,510 19,498 TOTAL 1 - 2 97,491 117,62.2. 3 North Naples/Golden Gate 35,262 38,925 Golden Gate/Sunnyland 3,808 3,898 Mobile Homes, not otherwise 1,544 3,277 included in the above flood prone areas (Category 4-5 Areas) NEW EVACUEES 37,996 40,542 TOTAL 1 - 3 135,487 158,164 II-A-13 TABLE 5 (ContinuedI COLLIER COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION ZONES Storm Population Estimate Category Zone July November 4 Corkscrew/Immokalee 7,451 9,697 Mobile Homes, not otherwise 197 417I included in the above flood prone areas (Category 5 Area) . NEW EVACUEES &,'194 6,837 TOTAL 1-4 141,681 165,001 5 Northeast County 2,064 2,328 Big Cypress 430 531 NEW EVACUEES 2,297 2,442 TOTAL 143,978 167,443 Motor Vehicles Nearly all of the population affected by an oncoming hurricane will evacuate by private vehicle. The question arises as to how many vehicles will be used in the evacuation. Issues relevant to this include the number of :,vehicles owned, whether owners would be willing to leave any vehicles behind (since next to the home, vehicles are the most expensive possession), whether all drivers feel confident to operate a vehicle in storm conditions, and whether evacuating families wish to be separated in different motor vehicles. Based on surveys, respondents indicated approximately 75% of available vehicles would be used in an evacuation. (CHurricane Evacuation Plan, 1981-82, SWFRPC). This-- averaged out to 1.1 vehicles per occupied unit. Using this ratio of cars and the occupancy ratio used previously, I the county potential total of vehicles used in an evacuation in July would be 65,955, and in November would be 76,745. Category h Zones again have the greatest number of vehicles, 34,846 (36,665 with mobile homes outside the area) in July and 41,114 (44,976 with mobile homes) in November.;' Table 6 summarizes the vehicle generation by each community. I I I II-A-14 I TABLE 6 COLLIER COUNTY VEHICLE ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION SEASON MOBILE (MOBILE HOMES) HOMES) CATEGORY ZONE JULY TRAVEL NOVEMBER TRAVEL TRAILER TRAILER 1 Everglades City/ 373 ( 79) 468 ( 168) Chokoloskee 1 Goodland 429 ( 104) 579 ( 220) 1 Henderson Creek 7,677 ( 662) 9,615 (1,406) 1 South Naples 9,401 ( 568) 11,082 (1,207) 1 Naples Beaches 16,966 ( 339) 19,370 ( 719) 2 East Naples 7,933 ( 343) 9,198 ( 729) 2 Fakahatchee 712 ( 276) 1,052 ( 585) 3 North Naples 16,162 ( 457) 17,840 ( 969) 3 Golden Gate 1,745 ( 36) 1,787 ( 76) 4 Corkscrew 3,414 ( 617) 4,444 (1,311) 5 Northeast County 946 ( 60) 1,067 ( 128) 5 Big Cypress 197 ( 30) 243 ( 64) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 65,955 (3,571) 76,745 (7,582) Shelters Evacuees must have a place to go. The SWFRPC undertook surveys in 1979 and 1981 to determine evacuee preferences. This data is summarized as follows: public shelters (24%), leaving the County (34%), visit friends or go to hotel or stay home or "other"- (21%.), "don't know" (21%). Those are preference declarationis; other studies indicate there is a significant variation from preference to actual behavior. Additionally, the severity of impending storms may also change decisions, as increased community-wide evacuation limits or eliminates the hotel/friends/ public shelter/stay home prediction. At this time, the County has nine public shelters, with a capacity (at 20 square feet per person) of 12,200 persons. These shelters are summarized in Table 7, by vulnerability zone. They are depicted on Map 5. Based upon the evacuees forecast in Table 5, the county has limited public shelter capacity. For example, the county can accommodate 15.2% of the evacuees of Category 1 storm in July, but only 12.4% in November. Table 8 summarizes the County's public shelter capacities for storms. IT-A-15 I SHELTERS & 1. BARRON COLLIER HIGH SCHOOL 2. BIG CYPRESS MIDDLE SCHOOL 3. GOLDEN GATB COMMUNITY CENTER 4. GOLDEN OATE MIDDLE SCHOOL 5. IMMOKALRE HIGH SCHOOL 6. IMMOKALER MIDDLE SCHOOL 7. LELY HIGH SCHOOL 8. NAPLES HIGH SCHOOL 9. PINE RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL LEGEND NOTE: FLOOD HEIGHTS AT SHORELINE 'i R I UP TO 8 FEET \ ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL(MSL) UP TO 10 FEET ABOVE MSL UP TO 16 FEET ABOVE 'MSL RED CROSS MANAGED PUBLIC SHELTER LOCATIONS I II-A-16 TABLE 7 COLLIER COUNTY SHELTERS Cap 20 Address per Cougar Drive Golden Gate Blvd., N. Golden Gate Pkwy. 48th Terrace SW 9th St. & Immokalee Rd. N. 9th Street Lely Blvd. 22nd Avenue N. Pine Ridge Rd. CAPACITY: pacity at Zone ) sq. ft. VulnE pers_on abili 2,500 2 700 3 400 3 1,700 3 600 Beyont 1,200 Beyont 2,500 2 1,800 3 800 3 12,200 persons er- ity d 5 d 5 Red Cross Managed Shelter Barron Collier High School Big Cypress Middle School* Golden Gate Community Ctr. Golden Gate Middle School Immokalee High School Immokalee Middle School Lely High School Naples High School Pine Ridge Middle School** TOTAL: 9 shelters * Designated shelter for handicapped persons. ** Designated shelter for nursing homes. I I I 1 I I I 3 TABLE 8 PUBLIC SHELTER CAPACITY EVACU IEES PERCENT MET NOVEMBER JULY NOVEMBER 98,124 15.2 12.4 117,622 7.4 6.1 158,1'64 <1 <1 (5.3) (4.6) 165,001 1.3 1.1 167,443 (1 <l1 shelters in Category 3 storms to ST CAT roRM PEGORY SPACE JULY 1 12,200 79,981 2 7,200 97,491 3 1,800 135,487 (7,200)* 4 1,800 141,681 5 1,800 143,978 *The potential exists for remain open. T - A -- 7 Public shelters within the County are not the only means of meeting.evacuee shelter needs. Regretfully, they seem to be the largest. Other options for evacuees include "friends," hotels and one's own home (refusal to leave). Of these, only the commercial (hotel) option can be assessed. In Collier County, there is an estimated 6,096 hotel/motel rooms. The greatest portion (91.9%) are along the shoreline or are in the category 1I flood zone. This leaves 495 units for category 1 storms, 226 units for category 2 storms, 101 units for category 3 storms, and 41 units for 4/5 category storms. The 495 units (at 100% vacancy) would satisfy 1.5% of demand in July and 1.2% of demand in November, for a category 1 storm. In Category 2 storms, less than 1% of demand would be met, while the greater storms eliminate virtually all capacity 'o'f commercial space being available. I In summary, public and commercial shelter space meets this muchI of county evacuee needs: Storm Category 1 = 16.7% July, 13.6% November Storm Category 2 = 8.0% July, 6.4% November Storm Category 3 = 5.5% July, 4.7% November Categories 4/5 = <1% Without public or private commercial space available evacuees have only the options of using friends within the County, or leaving the County for less affected areas such as areas outside of the storm's probable impact. The shelter capacity of "friends" is limited. This capacity diminishes as the ratio of evacuees to those not affected increases. This problem is depicted in Table 9. TABLE 9 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT RATIO STORM POPULATION CATEGORY DISPLACED NOT DISPLACED RATIO July November July November July November 1 79,981 98,124 63,997 69,319 1.25:1 1.4:1 2 97,491 117,622 46,487 49,821 2.1:1 2.4:1 3 135,487 158,164 8,491 9,279 16:1 18.6:1 4 141,681 165,001 2,297 2,442 61.6:1 67.'6:1 5 143,978 167,443 0 0 It is an assumption that ratios of 1:1 or better (0.8:1, 0.6:1) will enable those seeking shelter with friends will find them. Ratios of worse than 1:1 (2:1, for example), will diminish that likelihood in proportion to the ratio. Given that assumption, only 80% of those evacuees from a category 1. storm wishing to stay with friends will be able to do so (80% in July and 70% in II-A-18 .3 November). Since 13% of evacuees have that desire (SWFRPC, 1981), only 10.4% (July) and 9.2% (November) will be able to do so. This worsens for each stronger category, with only 6.5% (July) and 5.4 (November) for Category 2 storms; for Category 3, this becomes 0.8% in July and 0.7% in November; and for greater storms, it becomes insignificant. These percentages added to the shelter populations absorb the remainder of "in county" shelter demand satisfaction. This is summarized in Table 10. TABLE 10 SHELTER SATISFACTION IN COLLIER COUNTY 3 PERCENT MET CATEGORY JULY NOVEMBER 1 27.1 22.8 2 14.5 11.8 3 6.3 6.1 4 <1 <1 5 <1 <1 If shelter needs cannot be met within the County,. they must be met outside of the County. For this reason, a knowledge of routes and route capacities becomes important. Routes Arterial roadways form the backbone of any hurricane evacuation effort. Collier County's roadway system provides relatively few- U options for evacuees coming from the coast. Those that do exist are depicted on Map 6, "Evacuation Routes." Identification of routes is the first step in assessing the roadway system. The next step is assessing roadway capacities. The capacities of these roadways have been develope.d based on their- characteristics, tied to the assessment methodologies of the Highway Capacity Manual, 1985. These capacities are contained in Table 11, and show that the roadways (at the 90/10 split) vary from a high hourly capacity at service level D of 2,410 trips for 1-75, to a low of 756 trips at the Hendry County line for SR 29. An important aspect of any route is its condition. Many routes along the shore are low lying. Their-p'ropensity to flood due to surge or tidal action causes their reliability to operate as a route to cease several hours before storm landfall. .-Map 6 depicts these possibilities. In most cases, however, winds, not shoreline flooding, will initially make roads unsafe for travel. The exception seems to be the Bonita Shores area for 'landfalling storms of category 1 or 2 strength. Rainfall flooding, however, may constitute a greater hazard to evacuation route operation than either early shoreline flooding or early winds. This is because roadways may flood and become partially or totally impassible early in an evacuation. Such IT--A-19 TABLE 11 EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS COLLIER COUNTY PER- MAXIMUM CENT NO HRLY. FLOW/ HIGHWAY PASSING FLOW RATE TYPE ZONES (LOS D) LANE # OF WIDTH LANES (FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPH) TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT 50/50 70/30 90/10 ROUTE 1-75 Lee County To SR 84 US 41 Lee County to Solana Rd. Solana Rd. to SR 84 SR 84 to Rattlesnake Hammock Road Rattlesnake Hammock Road to SR 951 SR 951 to SR 29 SR 29 to Dade County 4 12 70 Freeway 4 12 70 Rur.Div. 6 12 60 Sub.Div. 4 12 60 Sub.Div. 4 12 60 Rur.Div. 2 12 60 -- 2 12 60 -- 2,410 2,302 2,801 1, 886 2,117 H H I o 90 90 1,202 1,. 202 724 724 902 902 977 977 SR 951 US 41 to Marco Bridge 1,151 958 1,036 2 - 12 60 100 769 SR 84 US 41 to Airport Road Airport Road to CR 951 CR 951 to Broward Co. 6 11 2 12 2 12 60 60 60 Sub.Div. 2,661 1,089. 1,089- 80 80 726 726 904 904 980 980 SR 29 Hendry Co. to Immokalee Ii,mokalee to SR 84 SRl 84 to US 41 SR 82 Hendry County to SR 29 2 10 60 2 12 60 2 10 60 80 80 80 840 1,050 902 1,'080 560 700 601 650 698 872 749 810 756 945 812 878 2 12 60 80 ImmI/~IIIIIIII//Imm - -- -- -m- - m - -m- -- - - m TABLE 11 (Continuedl EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS COLLIER COUNTY PER- CENT NO HIGHWAY PASSING TYPE ZONES MAXIMUM HRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) 1,371 1,057 914 LANE # OF WIDTII LANES -(FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPII) TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT ROUTE CR 846 CR 901 to I-75 I-75 to SR 29 SR 29 to Hendry County 50/50 70/30 90/10 2 12 60 Rur.Div. 2 12 60 Rur.Div. 2 9 50 Rur.Div. 90 90 90 770 706 960 1,040 880 954 CR 858 CR 846 to Hendry County 2 12 60 Rur.Div. 962 80 1,183 713 888 CR 891 CR 846 to Green Blvd. CR 951 Green Blvd. to Radio Rd. Radio Rd. to US 41 H H I i- a 2 12 60 Rur.Div. 90 100 1, 109 1,924 1,136 740 757 921 998 4 2 12 12 60 Sub.Div. 60 Rur.Div. 944 1,022 CR 864 Rattlesnake Ilammock Rd. Country Barn Road 1, 291 1,440 777 766 2 12 60 Rur.Div. 2 12 60 Rur.Div. 90 90 969 1,049 954 1,034 CR 856 (Radio Road) CR 31 (Airport Road) SR 846 to US 41 4 12 60 Sub.Div. 4 12 60 Sub.Div. 90 1,064 640 799 865 1,924 CR 896 (Pine Ridge. Road) US 41 to CR 951 4 12 60 Sub.Div. 1,912 1,913 CR 886 (Golden Gate Pkwy.) US 41 to CR 951 V 1 4 l1 60 Sub.Div. TABLE 11 (Continuedl EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS COLLIER COUNTY PER- CENT NO HIGIIWAY PASSING TYPE ZONES MAXIMUM HRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) LANE # OF WIDTHI LANES (FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPH) TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT 50/50 70/30 90/10 ROUTE CR 851 (Goodlette Rd.) CR 896 to US 41 Santa Barbara Blvd. Green Blvd. to SR 84 CR 901 Lee County to CR 846 4 12 4 12 2 10 60 Sub.Div. 60 Sub.Div. 60 Rur.Div. 50 Rur.Div. 50 Rur.Div. 1,924 1,964 865 610 805 H H 90 80 90 1,064 678 895 640 452 597 799 563 743 CR 839 (Birdon Rd.) SR 84 to US 41 2 9 CR 850 Lee County to SR 82 2 10 I m m m m m m m m m _ m m m m _ m m C 0C X | ~ -C856 SR84 : County 0. Boarn Rd 864- SR 51 : Q ! 2 3 4 MILES SWFRPC 87-RNC MAP 6 COLLIER COUNTY EVACUATION' ROUTES II-A-23 ! areas have been documented for different storms and are depicted on Map .7. These are areas that must be passed before the presupposed onset of heavy rains, which is eight hours before eye landfall- This is relevant for Category 1 storms for most areas of Collier County and for fewer areas for Category 2 or greater storms. Clearance Times 1 There are several factors taken into account when calculating community clearance time. The first is the nature of the threat. Although there are no assurances that t-he, County cannot be struck by Category 4 and 5 storms, the probabi'lities of this are low. The County does, however, lie subject-to Storms of Category 1,-2, and 3 strength in decreasing probability. With each storm of increasing strength, the number of persons and vehicles also increases. Other factors contributing to clearance time are the number of vehicles evacuating and the capacity of roadways to carry evacuees. This translates into a number of hours it will take to move persons past any given point. The final factors include the number and distance of "stopping" opportunities offered evacuees, and the distance to these opportunities. If stopping opportunities needed are only ten miles inland, the time is much less for an evacuation than if they are 100 miles distant. These factors compose the evacuation time. For certain communities within the County, times are less than for others. This variation is because pre-landfall flood conditions are not as bad, shelter locations are closer, and better quality evacuation routes are available. Table 12 summarizes pre- landfall flood conditions, Table 13 summarizes shelter distances and options, and Table 14 summarizes the time it takes to clear- the most restrictive point on the route for each community for each of the slow, intermediate, and quick responses. I ! ! ! ! II-A--24 C) r t- - MAP 7 COLLIER COUNTY ROUTES SUBJECT TO RAINFALL FLOODING II-A-25 I I TABLE 12 PRE-LANDFALL FLOOD CONDITIONS I TIME TO COASTAL FLOOD RAINFALL WIND COMMUNITY CATEGORY Everglades Goodland HIenderson Crk. Rookery Bay Naples Beach East Naples Fakahatchee North Naples Golden Gate 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5.5 6.5 8.5 6.5 8 10.5 6.5 8 10.5 5 7 9.5 5.5 7 9.5 7 9. 5 7 9 9 9 I I I I I I 0.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 5.0 1.5 2.5 5.0 1.5 3.0 7 7.5 9.0 1.2 3.0 1.5 3.0 2.5 1.5 I TABLE 13 SHELTER DESIGNATIONS AND OPTIONS CATEGORY ZONE PUBLIC SHELTERS NAME ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME 1 Everglades Immokalee Middle School Immokalee High School 1 Goodland Immokalee Middle School Immokalee High School 1 Elenderson Lely High School Creek 1 So. Naples Lely High School Pine Ridge Middle Golden Gate Middle Barron ColLier Hligh School Golden Gate Comm. Naples High School r1 Naples Beaches Lely High School Pine Ridge Middle Golden Gate Middle Barron Collier High School Golden Gate Comm. Naples High 1 Mobile Homes (2-5) 1 hr. 1 hr. .25 hr. .5 hr. .25 hr. .5 hr. I I I II-A-26 TABLE 13 (Continuedi SHELTER DESIGNATIONS AND OPTIONS CATEGORY ZONE PUBLIC SHELTERS ESTIMIATED NAME TRAVEL TIME 2 All I Zones Immokalee Middle School Immokalee High School Pine Ridge Middle Golden Ca te Middle Golden Gate Comm. Naples High 2 East Naples Immokalee Middle School .25 hr. Immokalee High School Pine Ridge Middle Golden Gate Middle Golden Gate Comm. Naples High Fakahatchee Immokalee Schools .5 hr. 3 AI.l Ii and 2 Zones Only Immokalee Schools* North Naples Only Immokalee Schools Golden Gate Only immokalee Schools *Possibility exists that Golden Gate Schools would only flood from extremely bad Category 3 storm conditions. However, careful examination of past heavy rainfall conditions on the areas of these shelters, particularly the functioning of the canals, should be taken into effect. As can be seen from this table, some routes end up being ultimate constricting points for more than I zone. That being the case, it may be expected that these times will become cumulative. This-* creates a "greatest time to clear" for the county as a whol-e.- Table 15 depicts the "greatest time to clear" calculation for each category storm. 11-A-27 TABLE 14 TIME TO CLEAR JULY INTER- NOVEMBER INTER- CATEGOf 1 1 1 1 H H 1 1 2 2 3 3* RY ZONE RESTRICTING TO COUNTY LINE 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 POINT 29 29 951 41 896 8 951 & 29 846 & 951 SLOW MEDIATE QUICK SLOW MEDIATE QUICK 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 (0.7 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.7 10.0 8.0 7.4 12.5 10.0 9.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.3 6.0 5.7 7.2 6.7 6.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.8 1.4 1.3 6.0 5.6 5.2 6.7 6.2 5.8 2.3 1.8 1.7 2.4 1.9 1.7 Everglades Goodland Henderson Crk. South Naples Naples Beaches East Naples Fakahatchee North Naples Golden Gate SR SR SR US CR CR SR CR CR , CR 846 & CR 31 K CR 896 *Only extreme Category 3 conditions would induce flooding in this zone . . . . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ II mm I I I - _ _ m _ mm TABLE 15 ULTIMATE CONSTRICTING ROUTE TIME CATEGORY CONSTRICTING -- JULY NOVEMBER ROUTE INTER- INTER- SLOW MEDIATE QUICK SLOW MEDIATE QUICK 1 SR 951 10.0 8.0 7.4 12.5 10.0 9.3 2 CR 951 13.0 10.8 10.0 15.9 13.2 12.3 3 CR 951* 13.0 10.8 10.0 15.9 13.2 12.3 *Reflects traffic dispersion to 1-75 Clearly, route constriction becomes a concern when it is unevenly distributed between different parts of the County. The relative isolation of the shoreline south of Naples and the limited routes south of SR 84 limits evacuation capacity causing the large times. The possibility exists that increased traffic control can better distribute loadings. If that is the case, the ultimate constricting points move to the sum of the routes exiting the County. Table 16 depicts the times that may occur, given different routing scenarios. The last factor to be incorporated into calculating the County clearance time is the response of potential evacuees to an evacuation order. The original 1981-82 Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan discussed this topic on page 125, and concluded that seven hours would be the minimum time needed to clear a zone, because some evacuees would dawdle more than others. More recent history indicates that sudden or dramatic changes in hurricanes can heighten the evacuees response into a "quick" evacuation, limited basically by road capacity. Consequently, in evaluating the final criteria that determines a slow,--- intermediate, or quick evacuation, both slow and intermediate- zones will have a minimum response time of seven hours; "quick" times, however, will be limited only by roadway capacity. All of these factors combine into creating a countywide clearance time. This time will vary depending upon the routes available for out of county evacuation, the time of season, and whether it is a slow, intermediate, or quick response. Table 17 summarizes the contribution to the greatest clearance time for the County for each category storm. The clearance time for the County as a whole for Category 3 storms will increase if out-of-county evacuation is limited solely to 1-75 (north or east) and SR 29 (north). If-more routes are provided, the time may lessen. This, of course depends upon the impact of the other evacuating counties. II-A-29 TABLE 16 COUNTY EXITING ROUTES % OF TOTAL COUNTY VEHICLES TIMES TOTAL CATEGORY VEIIICLES LEAVING CO. COMBINED CAPACITIES JULY NOVEMBER SLOW INTER- QUICK MEDIATE ROUTES SLOW INTER- IED IATE QUICK SLOW INTER- MEDIATE QUlICK l(a) 26,729(J) 34,721(N) 72.9 77.2 1-75 (N & E) AND SR 29 3,696 4,012 4,146 7.2 6.7 6.4 9.4 8.7 8.4 2(a) 39,066(J) 47,550(N) 85.5 88.2 same as l(a) 10.5 9.7 9.4 12.9 11.9 11.5 (b) I-75 AND AND (N & E) SR 29, US 41(N) 5,998 6,314 6,448 6.5 6.2 6.1 8.0 7.5 7.4 3(a) (b) (c) 58,192(J) 68,072(N) 93.7 93.9 same as 1(a) same as 2(b) 1-75 (N and E) AND SR 29, AND US 41 (N AND E) 15.7 9.7 8.6 14.5 9.2 8.1 -14.0 9.0' 7,8 18.4 11.3 10.1 17.0 10.8 9.4 16.4 10.6 9.2 6,722 7,216 7,425 /mII/II/IIIBllImm II// m- -- - - - - - - - - - - -m TABLE 17 TOTAL EVACUATION TIME CLEARANCE TIME INTERMIDIATE J N J TOTAL EVACUATION SLOW INTERMEDIATE N J N J N TIME QUICK J SLOW N QUICK CATEGORY DESTINATION(1) WEATHER(2) N 1 2 L.0 1.0 8 8 10.0 12.5 8.0 10.0 7.4 16.4 18.3 19.0 21.3 9.3 19.0 21.5 17.0 19.0 13.0 15.9 10.8 13.2 10.0 12.3 22.0 24.9 19.8 22.2 3 1.0 10.5 13.0 15.9 (15.7) (18.4) 10.8 13.2 (14.5) (17.0) 10.0 12.3 (14.0) (16.4 ) 24.5 27.4 21.5 23.8 (23.0)(25.4) 22.3 24.7 (24.7)(.27.4) (23.5)(26.0) (1) From Table 13 or 14, whichever is greater H H I (2) From Table 12 Numbers in parenthesis reflect "County Exiting Time" restrictions if The weather restricting factor is rainfall in such an event. too few roadways can be accessed. ! PART II - 1991 FORECASTS Part of hurricane preparedness involves understanding and evaluating the growth that may be expected in the forthcoming years. This element discusses short ranged growth (4 years) the area may undergo, and the facilities that are expected to be added to serve it. The growth predicted follows a single straight-lined forecast technique. Applied uniformly, increases by category and community for housing, persons, and vehicles for 1991 are depicted in Tables 18, 19, and 20. . * Table 18 forecasts a total of 95,225 dwelling units for 1991. [ Table 19 forecasts a total of 161,442 persons in July; and 187,871 in November. Table 20 forecasts a total of 74,002 vehicles in July; and 86,108 in November. TABLE 19 COLLIER COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1991 (Mobile (Mobile Zone Name July Home/TT) November Home/TT) 1 Everglades City 896 ( 193) 1,144 ( 411) Goodland 1,051 ( 254) 1,419 ( 539) Hfenderson Creek 18,792 (1,621) 23,535 (3,441) South Naples 23,013 (1,391) 27,127 (2,954) I Naples Beaches 41,533 ( 829) 47,417 (1,759) * 2 East Naples 19,421. ( 840) 22,517 (1,7841) Fakahatchee 1,740 ( 674) 2,576 (1,433) 3 North Naples 39,564 (1,118) 43,674 (2,373) Golden Gate 4,273 ( 88) 4,374 ( 186) 4 Corkscrew 8,360 (1,511) 10,880 (3,209) 5 Northeast County 2,316 ( 147) 2,612 ( 312) Big Cypress 482 ( 74) 596 ( 156) � . TOTAL 161,442 ( 8,740) 187,871 (18,557) I I ~~~~~~~~~~! I II-A-32 TABLE 18 COLLIER COUNTY - HOUSING ESTIMATE FOR 1991 (Based on projected housing units of 95,225) Storm Residential Mobile Home/ Multi- Hotel- Category Zone Single-Family Rec. Vehicle Family Duplex Motel Total 1 Everglades City 264 248 17 9 33 570 Chokoloskee � 1 Goodland 139 325 50 49 221 785 Ten Thousand Islands 1 IIenderson Creek 2,487 2,078 6,077 40 2,296 12,978 * 1 South Naples 4,416 1,784 6,576 688 365 13,829 Rookery Bay 1 Naples Beaches 8,347 1,063 10,707 .811 3,370 24,298 TOTAL ZONE 1 15,653 5,498 23,427 1,598 6,284 52,460 2 East Naples 3,456 1,077 5,556 '990 302 11,380 .. 2 Fakahatchee 327 865 209 0 0 1,400 Copeland TOTAL ZONE 2 3,782 1,942 5,765 990 302 12,781 TOTALS ZONES 1 & 2 19,435 7,440 29,192 '2,587 6,586..:.n 65,241 3 North Naples 10,175 1,433 7,565 1,497 140 20,810 Golden Gate 3 Golden Gate 1,739 112 8 0 0 1,859 '. Sunnyland TOTAL ZONE 3 11,915 1,545 7,572 1,497 140 22,669 TOTALS ZONES 1 - 3 31,350 8,985 36,765 4,084 6,726 87,910 4 Corkscrew/ 1,451 1,938 2,159 148 67 5,763 '. Immokalee TO TAL ZONE 4 1,451 1,938 2,159 148 67 5,763 TOTALS ZONES 1 - 4 32,801 10,923 38,923 4,232 6,794 93,672 , 5 Northeast County 63f 188 316 68 46 1,252 5 Big Cypress 122 94 84 0 0 301 .T.OTAL ZONE 5 755, 283 401 68 46 1,553 TOTALS ZONES .1 - 5 33,556 11,205 39,324 4,301 6,840 95,225 -'. H H I I w w t3~ L.J I I I TABLE 20 MOTOR VEHICLE ESTIMATES FOR 1991 (Mobile (Mobile Zone Name July Rome/TT) November Home/TT) E verglades City 419 ( 89) 525 ( 188) Goodland 481 ( 117) 650 ( 247) Henderson Creek 8,614 ( 743) 10,788 ( 1,578) South Naples 10,548 ( 637) 12,434 (1,354) Naples Beaches 19,036 ( 280) 21,733 ( 807) I 8,901 ( 799 ( ( 818) ( 656) 2 East Naples Fakahatchee 385) 310) 10,320 1,180 I I I 3 North Naples Golden Gate 18,134 1,958 ( 513) ( 40) 20,016 ( 1,087) 2,005 ( 85) 4 Corkscrew 3,831 ( 692) 4,986 ( 1,471) 5 Northeast County 1,061 ( 67) 1,197 ( 144) Big Cypress 221 ( 34) 273 ( 72) TOTALT 74,002 (4,007) 86,108 (8,507) The additional facilities expected can be categorized as "shelters" and "routes." Regretfully, future shelter site and capacity information has not yet been exactly determined. Route improvements, however, are better known. i I I I I I I There are three new schools forecast for Collier County, one middle and two elementary schools. In addition, Pine Ridge Middle is expected to undergo an expansion as well as is the Exceptional Student Education Program. Currently, the-County is only designating middle or high schools_. as shelters. This policy, if continued, would only have the new middle school and the Pine Ridge additions as new shelter space. Neither proposed facility has been assessed for its capacity. However, for short term purposes, the new Middle School will be assessed to have 800 spaces, and the Pine Ridge expansion will add 400 spaces. The new middle school is assumed to be in a Category 2 zone area south of SR 84. These 1200 -new spaces increase the County shelter capacity by 10% during a period when the County is expected to increase demand by 12.2%. Route improvements for the next five-year period indicate substantial improvements will be made to routes exiting the Category 1 zone. Using the 1988-1992 TIP of the Naples/Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization as a guide, the following significant improvements are forecasted: I (a) Adding two lanes to SR 90 (Tamiami Trail) for 2.1 miles ' (-b) Adding two::ianes to SR '951 for 6.6 mi-le's'(Mar: o''.Is'And:'"i.::'' t:'::-"' ..... 41) (unfunded) II-A-34 I (c) Improving 1-75 (Alligator Alley) for 29.2 miles eastward toward Broward County (d) Adding two laes to CR 951 for 6.2 miles (e) Extending Vanderbilt Beach Road as a 4--lane four to CR 951 I| ~(two lanes) for 2.9 miles (f) Adding two lanes to Airport Pulling Road for 2.4 miles (g) Extending Livingston Road as a 4-lane road for 6.2 miles I (h) Adding two lanes to Immokalee Road (C 846) for 3.5 miles (i) Adding two lanes to Pine Ridge Road for 2 miles Even though the exact capacities of these new improvements cannot be calculated at this time, an estimate can be made. Table 21 provides a revision of the previously provided Table 11 to represent 1991 conditions. TABLE 21 REVISED CAPACITIES NEW ROUTE CAPACITY OLD CAPACITY US 41 from 5 Ave. S to CR 31 SR 951 from Marco to US 41* 1-75 from current segment to Broward Co. CR 987 from US 41 to CR 864 Vanderbilt Beach Road from existing to CR 951 CR 31 from UIS 41 to Golden Gate Livingston from CR 846 to Imperial m Immokalee from US 41 to 1-75 Pine Ridge Road from US 41 to _ -CR 31 2,801 1,886 2,410 1,886 865 (quick) 2,801 1,886 1, 886 2,801 1,886 1,036 (quick) 980 (quick) 1,022 (quick) 0 1,924 0 1,040 (quick) 1,921 * tCurrently-listed as an "unfunded" project _ Assuming that these improvements are in place, new shelter m satisfaction capacities (Table 10), time to clear (Table 14), exiting route assessments (Table ].6), and total evacuation time calculations (Table ]17) can be made. Shelter capacities do not improve with the facilities projected because growth is outstripping the capacity added. Since the methodology used was a single straight-line process, the only ractors changfing were the population (up 12.2%) and shelter space (up 9.8 A). As a result, shelter satisfaction within the County [ will demonstrate a decline. Table 22 depicts this decline. I II-A-35 TABLE 22 SHELTER SATISFACTIONL 1991 PERCENT MET CATEGORY JULY NOVEMBER 1 26.8 21.4 2 14.2 11.9 3 6,4 5.5 4 <1 <1 5 (1 ,<1 This decline can only worsen evacuation and clearance times unless comparable out--of-county route, improvements are made. Using the improvements listed, there are route improvements forecast that improve in-county movement capacities. The most effective improvements are SR 951 to US 41 (unfunded) and Immokalee Road. Table 23 depicts these changes. I TABLE 23 REVISED TIME TO CLEAR 1991 JULY I I I NOVEMBER INTER- CATEGOR 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 R Y ZONE RESTRICTING POINT INTER- SLOW MEDIATE QUICK SLOW MEDIATE QUICK 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.9 0.8 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 6.6 6.6 _6.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2,7 2.7 2.7 1.3 1.1 0.9 2.0 1.5 1.4 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.3 5.3 5.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 SR 29 SR 29 SR 951 US 41 CR 896 & CR 846 CR 951 & CR 31 SR 29 CR 846 & CR 896 CR 951 Everglades Goodland Henderson Crk. South Naples Naples Beaches East Naples Fakahatchee North Naples Golden Gate S = Slow I = Intermediate Q = Quick I I I I II-A-36 Regretfully, none of the out-of-county routes have improvements slated, with the exception of 1-75 (east). Consequently, traffic growth combined with a reduced ability to provide shelter means increased out of county times. This is depicted in Table 24. The improvement to critical coastal routes improves the evacuation times of coastal zones. Consequently, behavior 3 response time (assumed 7 hours) or county exiting route times may become the constraining time factor. This is shown in Table 25. Depending upon the number and capacity, of county exiting routes ava.ilable, either these routes or behavioral response will be the constraint for category I or 2 storms. However, for category 3 storms, the constraining factor wi''l be the coastal rout'es capacities in the county's highly developed western shore, west of 1-75. I- ! ! m ! ! ! ! I * 11~~~~~~~~I--A-37 TABLE 24 COUNTY EXITING ROUTES 1991 TOTAL CATEGORY VEHICLES LEAVING CO. % OF TOTAL COUNTY VEIIICLES TIMES ROUTES COMBINED CAPACITIES SLOW INTER- QUICK MEDIATE JULY SLOW INTER- MEDIATE NOVEMBER SLOW INTER- QUICK MEDIATE QUICK l(a) 30,113(J) 39,664(N) 73.2 78.6 1-75 (N & E) AND SR 29 5,380 5,518 5,576 5.6 5.5 5.4 7.4 7.2 7.1 2(a) 49,923(J) 53,290(N) 85.6 88.1 same as l(a) 8.0 7.8 7,682 7,820 7,878 5.6 5.5 7.7 9.9 9.7 9.6 6.7 13.8 9.7 8.7 (b) (N & E) SR 29, US 41(N) 1-75 AND AND 5.4 .. 6.9 6.8 H H I 1> I Go CO 3(a) (b) (c) 65,223(J) 76,864(N) 93.6 94.5 same as l(a) same as 2(b) 1-75 (N and E) AND SR 29, AND US 41 (N AND E) 12.1 8.5 7.8 11.8 8.4 7.5 11.7 8.3 7.3 14.3 10.0 9.1 13.9 9.8 8.8 8,406 8,714 8,885 ImMIIMIII/IIIImIIm -- - m - m - ------ m - - m - TABLE 25 TOTAL EVACUATION TIME CONS TRA IN- - ING WEATIER ,ALT* FACTOR CLEARANCE TIME INTER- SLOW MEDIATE QUICK TOTAL-EVACUATION TIME INTER- SLOW MEDIATE QUICK SEASON DESTINATION CATEGORY 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 16.6 16.2 16.8 16.0 18.7 16.0 J N J J N N 8 8 8 8 A A A B A B B E E B E B 7.0 7.4 8.0 7.0 9.9 7.0 7.0 7.2 7.8 7.0 9.7 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.7 7.0 9.6 7.0 16.0 16.4 17.0 16.0 18.9 1].6 .0 16.0 16.1 16.7 16.0 18.6 16.0 H H I kD 3 J J N N 1.0 1.0 N = November 10.5 10.5 12.1 9.8 14.3 9.8 11.8 9.8 13.9 9.8 11.7 9.8 13.8 9.8 23.6 21.3 25.8 21.3 23.3 21.3 25.4 21.3 23.2 21.3 25.3 21.3 A B A B/C E Z E Z J = July B = Behavior Z = Zone Volume and Route Constraint E = Exiting Route; * From Table 24 Dependingf uponI the number n(cl capacity of county exiting routes available, ei ther these routes or behavorial. response wil.] be the constraint for category 1 or 2 storms. tlowever, for catlegory 3 stormls, the constra:ining fac-tor will be the coastal routes capacities in the county's highly developed western shore, west of 1-75. APPENDIX 1 LANDFALLING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 1 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- STJSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS - GRID STORM POINTS Chokoloskee Island I Carnestown Royal Palm Goodland Marco Island I Marco Island Bridge Isle of Capri Naples Manor Collier County EOC Naples Pine Ridge Bonita Shores LANDFALLING HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS 14.5 13 11.5 15 13.5 4.5 8 (15 (25 (20 (20 (10 SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) (30 (20 (15 (15 (45 (10 (10 (10 (5 (5 (0 (0 (35 SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) NS) 2.5 -1 -1.5 2 1.5 1.5 7 4.5 5.5 6 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 6. 5.5 5.5 5 5.5 8 8 8.5 8.5 10 9 9 8.5 8.5 8.5 9 8.5 7 (25 NS) (70 NS) PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 2 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GAI,E FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS GRID STORMI POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(l) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS - Chokoloskee Island Carnestown Royal Palm I Goodland Marco Island Marco Island Bridge Isle of Capri Naples Manor Collier County EOC Naples -- P Iine Ridge Naples Park * Bonita Shores 3 .5 .5 3 2.5 2 3 1 1.5 .5 7.5 (15 SS) (25 SS) (20 SS) (10 SS) (10 SS) (10 SS) (30 NS) (10 SS) ( 5 SS) (10 NS) (60 NS) 15 13.5 13.5 15 14.5 14 6.5 13 13.5 7 6.5 7 7.5 8 7.5 7.5 7 7 7 6.5 7 6.5 (25 (2O 0 (15 (15 (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 (10 ( 0 (40 (25 SS. ) Ssj SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) S) NS) NS) 10.5 10 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 1.0.5 11- 10.5 9 10 1 10 I APPENDIX 1 LANDFALLING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 3 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) 9.5 8.5 9 9.5 10.5 10 10 9.5 9.5 9.5 9 9 9 TO DURA STORM IN TRACK HOURS (10 SS) 133 (20 SS) 13.5 (10 SS) 13. (10 SS) 14 1 (30 NS) 12.5 (30 NS) 12 (30 NS) 12. (35 NS) 11. (35 NS) 12.5 (35 NS) 12. (25 NS) 13.1 (35 NS) 12.5 (40 NS) 13 1 3 I GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS Chokoloskee Island Carnestown Royal Palm Goodland Marco Island Marco Island Bridge Isle of Capri .Naples Manor Collier County EOC Naples Pine Ridge Naples Park Bonita Shores 4 1.5 2 4 5 4 5 2.5 3 1 2.5 1.5 9 (10 (20 (15 (10 (35 (40 (45 (25 (40 (0 (30 (25 (75 SS) SS) SS) SS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) S) NS) NS) NS) ;16 14.5 14 16 15 14 9 13.5 13 13 4 3 13 LANDFALLING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 4 I TOTAL DURAU' STORM INf TRACK HOURS (10 SS) 15 (20 SS) 15 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS Chokoloskee Island Carnestown Royal Palm Goodland Marco Island Marco Island Bridge :Isle of Capri Naples Manor Collier County EOC :Naples Pine Ridge Naples Park ,Bonita Shlores HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS 4.5 2.5 2.5 5.5 6.5 5 6.5 4 4.5 2.5 3.5 3 9.5 (25 (15 (15 (40 (50 (40 (70 (40 (50 (25 (35 (35 (75 NS) SS) SS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 15.5 14.5 14.5 16.5 16.5 16 9.5 15 14.5 13.5 5.5 4.5 14 11 10 11 11.5 12 11.5 11.5 11 11.5 11.5 11 10.5 10.5 (35 (35 (40 (25 (35 (25 (50 (50 (50 (35 (45 S) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 14 14 ! 14 15 14. 14. 14 14 14 I 15 14.5 ! I I I 2 APPENDIX 1 LANDFALLING PRE-EYE LAND)FALL AZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 5 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) 10.5 10.5 10 10.5 11 10.5 10.5 10 10.5 10.5 10 10 9.5 TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS (5 (15 (10 (35 (35 (40 (60 (45 (30 (0 (45 (35 (75 16 14 14.5 15.5 16.5 14.5 7 9.5 14.5 14 2.5 2 13 I Chokoloskee Island Carnestown :Royal Palm Goodland Marco Island . Marco Island Bridge Isle of Capri Naples Manor Collier County EOCG Naples Pine Ridge Naples Park Bonita Shores 4 2 2.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 3 4.5 2 3 2 9 SS) SS) SS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) S) NS) NS) NS) (20 (10 (35 (35 (30 (30 (30 (25 (45 (45 (35 (45 (35 SS) SS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 13.5 13.5 11 11 12.5 12 12.5 13 11.5 11.5 13 12.5 13 PARALLEL PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 1 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS GRID 3 STOrM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOUJRS Chokoloskee Island Carnestown Royal Palm :Goodland Marco Island .Marco Island Bridge !Isle of Capri I Naples Manor Collier County EOC Naples Pine Ridge Naples Park Bonita Shores 3.5 1 -5.5 2.5 1.5 1 .5 ( 0 S) ( 0 S) ( 0 s) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) (30 wS) 15.5 13 6.5 14.5 13.5 10 10 8.5 8.5 8.5 8 8.5 8 7 7 6.5 6 6 (15 ES) (15 ES) (-o -6) ( 0 S) (15 WS) (15 WS) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) (15 ES) ( 0 S) (15 WS) (15 WS) ( 0 S) 9.5 10 9.5 9.5 9.5 9 9.5 9 8 9 8.5 6 9 3.5 5 7 APPENDIX 1 PARALLEL� PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 2 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURAT STORM IN TRACK HOURS HOIURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL DURATION IN HOURS GRID STORM POINTS Chokoloskee Island Carnestown Royal Palm Goodland Marco Island Marco Island Bridge Isle of Capri Naples Manor Collier County EOC Naples Pine Ridge Naples Park Bonita Shores STORM TRACK 12.51 12.5 11.5 12 12 12 11.51 1125 11.5 11.51 11.5 11-5 1 12 11.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10 10 9 9 8.5 8 7.5 4 2.5 1.5 3 2.5 2 2 .5 -1 ( 0 (0 (0 (15 (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 S) S) s) wS) S) S) S) S) S) 16 14.Si .' 13.5 15 14.5 14 14 12.5 3 8.5 ( 0 (0 (o (15 ( (15 (15 (15 (15 (15 (o ( ( S) S) .S) WS) S) WS) WS) WS) WS) wS) S) S) S) 1 (30 WS) PARALLEL PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 3 TOTAL DURATi STORM IN TRACK HOURS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE- EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(l) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS 15 15 14.53 15 14.5 14.5 14.51 15 14.5 14 I 14 14 I I 3 3 Chokoloskee Island Carnestown Royal Palm Goodland Marco Island Marco Island Bridge Isle of Capri Naples Manor Collier County EOC Naples- Pine Ridge Napl].es Park Bonita Shores 4 3 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2 1 0 0 1.5 ( 0 (0 (15 (15 (15 (15 (15 (15 (15 (0 ( 0 S) S) WS) ws) wS) WS) wS) WS ) wS) S) S) 16 15 14.5 15.5 15.5 14.5 14.5 14 13 12 . 1 9 14.5 13 12 12 12 11.5 11.5 11 11 10.5 10 9.5 9.5 (15 WS). ( o S) ( 0- a ( o S) (15 WS) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) (15 WS) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) ( o S) '( 0 S) (15 WS) 4 APPENDIX 1 PARALLEL PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 4 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATIOQ STORM IN TRACK HOURS GRID I .4 STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS I .Chokoloskee Island Carnestown Royal Palm Goodland I Marco Island Marco Island Bridge Isle of Capri I i Naples Manor Collier County EOC I , Naples I ;Pine Ridge Naples Park Bonita Shores 15.5 14 14 15 15 14 14 13 12.5 13.5 3.5 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 .5 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 WS ) WS) WS) WS) WS) WS ) WS ) WS) WS) 13 12.5 12 12 12 12 12 11.5 11 10.5 10 10 9.5 (30 (30 (45 (30 (30 (45 (45 (30 (45 (30 (30 (30 (30 WS ) WS) WS) WS) WS ) WS) WS ) WS) WS ) WS ) WS) WS) WS ) 15 15 15.5 16 16 16 16 16 15.5 16 16 16 16 1.5 (60 WS) PARALLEL - 60 WS ONLY PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 5 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATIO?' STORM IN TRACK HOURS GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS I Chokoloskee Island Carnestown .Royal Palm Goodland Marco Island .Marco Island Bridge Naples Manor Collier County EOC Naples Pine Ridge I Naples Park Bonita Shores 2 14 11 10 9.5 10 10.5 10 10 9.5 9 8.5 8 7.5 7.5 10.5 _ 9.5 - - 11 11.5 12.5 12 12 12 12 11.5 11.5 11 11.5 1.5 1.5 13.5 13.5 0 8.5 1.5 12.5 5 APPENDIX 1 CROSS ING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 1 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) 10 10 9 8 7.5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7.5 TOTAL DURK STORM IND* TRACK HOURS (15 NS) 10 I (0 S) 9.5 (15 SS) 8 (15 NS) 10 (15 NS) 9. (15 SS) 7 (o s) (15 SS) 97 1 (15 SS) 8.5 (15 SS) 8* (15 SS) 9 (15 SS) 10 (15 SS) GRID STORM POINTS Chokoloskee Island Carnestown Royal Palm Goodland Marco Island Marco Island Bridge Isle of Capri Naples Manor Collier County EOC Naples Pine Ridge Naples Park Bonita Shores CROSSING HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) 2 -1.5 TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS (15 NS) 15 (15 NS) '11.5 1 ( 0 S) 2.5 3 (30 SS) 5.5 I TOTAL DURA1 STORM .. IN TRACK HOUR PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 2 ItOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STOIC! POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(l) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOIURS 12 10.5 11�1 10. 10 .11� 11. 9. 11 10 �l 10. 12 I Chokoloskee Island Carnestown Royal Palm Goodland Marco Island Marco Island Bridge Isle of Capri Naples Manor Collier County EOC Naples' IPine Ridge Naples Park Bonita Shores 2 -1.5 0 -.5 2 3.5 (15 NS) 15 (15 NS) 11.5 (15 NS) 13 (15 NS) 12.5 (0 S) 4 (30 SS) 6.5 12 12 10.5 10 9 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9 9.5 9.5 9 ( 0 (0 (U5 (0 (0 (15 (0 (0 (30 (15 (30 (30 (15 s) ._ s) s- ) S) s ) S) S) s) ss ) SS) SS) ss) SS) SS) I ' I I APPENDIX 1 CROSSING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIIES - CATEGORY 3 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATION IN HOURS GRID I STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(l) TOTAL DURATION IN HOIRS STORM TRACK STORM TRACK Chokoloskee Island Carnestown Royal Palm Goodland I Marco Island Marco Island Bridge Isle of Capri i Naples Manor Collier County EOC Naples Pine Ridge I Naples Park Bonita Shores (15 (15 (15 (1_ 5 (15 (15 (0 (0 (0 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) S) S) S) 15.5 13.5.' 12 13.5 14 13.5 7.5 6.5 11.5 8 10 10 9 8.5 8 8 8 8.5 8 8 8 8 8 ( 0 (0 (15 (15 ( 0 (1. 5 ( 0 (15 (0 (1.5 (15 (15 (1. 5 S) S) SS) SS) S) SS) S) SS) S) SS) SS) SS) SS) 11.5 12 11 10.5 11.5 10 11.5 11 12 11.5 12 12 12.5 2.5 .5 -1 .5 1 .5 2.5 .5 -.5 3.5 (30 SS) ,, 7 LEE COUNTY - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page # Hurricane Vulnerability ..............................II-B-1 Recent Storm History .................................II-B-7 Affected Population ..................................II-B-8 Motor Vehicles .......................................II-B-12 Shelters .............................................II-B-14 Routes ...............................................II-B-19 Clearance Times .......................................II-B-19 1991 Forecasts .......................T ..............II-B-35 APPENDIX - Hazard Times .............1................1 LIST OF MAPS Map Page # 1. SLOSH Model Storm History Points ..................II-B-2 2. Maximum Areas Subject to Flooding .................I I-B-3 3. Evacuation Zones ..................................II-B-9 4. Red Cross Managed Public Shelter Locations ........ II-B-15 5. Evacuation Routes .................................II-B-20 6. Routes Subject to Rainfall Flooding ...............II-B-26 LIST OF TABLES Table Page # 1. Predicted Coastal Storm Surges ....................II-B-4 2. Hurricane Simulated by Surge Model ................II-B-5 3. Selected Storm Tracks .............................II-B-7 4. 1987 Housing Units ................................II-B-10 5. Population Estimates ..............................II-B-11 6. Vehicle Estimates .................................II-B-13 7. Shelters ..........................................II-B-14 8. Public Shelter Capacity ...........................II-B-17 9. Population Displacement Ratio ....... ..............I-B- 10. Shelter Satisfaction ..............................II-B-18 11. Evacuation Route Capacity Calculation .............II-B-21 12. Pre-Landfall Flood Conditions .....................I1-B-27 13. Shelter Designations and Options ..................II-B-28 14. Time to Clear .....................................II-B-31 15. Ultimate Constricting Route .......................II-B-30 16. County Exiting Routes ...........................II-B-32 17. Total Evacuation Time ............................II-B-34 18. Housing Units, 1991....11-.B736 18; ousig Unts, 991.............................-B6 19. Population Estimates, 1991 ........................I 1B-37 20. Motor Vehicle Estimates, 1991 .....................II-B-38 21. Revised Capacities ................................II-B-40 22. Shelter Capacities, 1991 ..........................II-B-39 23. Shelter Satisfactions, 1991 .................i ......II-B-41 24. Revised Time to Clear, 1991 .......................II-B-42 25. Ultimate Constricting Route, 1991 ...................I1-B-43 26. Exiting Routes, 1991.II-B-44 ....... T''' ime,19.......'............'I-B-45 27. To~i Time, 199].....I LEE COUNTY PEACETIME EMERGENCY PLAN (Hurricanes) [9J-5.012(2)(e)(i)] IIURRICANE VULNERABILITY ! The hurricane vulnerability of Lee County has been analyzed using I a numerical storm surge prediction model known as SLOSH, short for Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes. This model is described in detail in the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan, 1981-82, prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council; as well as A Storm Surge Atlas for Southwest Florida, : prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 3 Undated, @ 1983). These reports analyzed some 187 separate storms for their potential impact on Southwest Florida, including Lee County. Both reports provide an assessment of methodologies 3 and provide assumptions that can act towards increasing or U decreasing forecast flood and wind conditions. However, in summary, the following assumptions can be made. I (1) Landfalling storms provide the worst flooding potential (2) Flooding will be worse south of the eye of the hurricane (3) Wind conditions making roads unsafe for travel will arrive well before the eye of the hurricane, and usually before |3 ~ flood waters inundate evacuation routes (4) Storm landfall prediction is not an exact science. Any approaching storm has the capacity to strengthen or veer, I decreasing or increasing the flooding and surge potential of the storm.- - | The SLOSIt model used sixteen points in Lee County for time history analysis. These points are depicted on Map 1. The greatest height of stormwaters for each category storm for each point are summarized in Table 1. The SLOSH model also provided maps of the flooding that may be expected in Lee County. The 187 different simulations have been I summarized by flood category, and a zone for each category has been created depicting the maximum extent of flooding resulting from all of the storms of that category. The five zones thus i created are depicted on Map 2. I �. . . . . . ;,.. - .. -:.:..:''.,.: ':'':'�'" ~'"; - " " : i.--i 3 II-B-1 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 16 5 10. H~~~~~~~~~1 H~~~~~~~~~1 w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5 FOOT CONTOUR LINES ASTORM HISTORY POINTS I PT. MYERS BEACH 9 CALOOSAHATCH-EE R. 2 FT: MYERS 13CI. BRIDGE 10 NEW BRIDGE' 3 SANIBEL ISLAND 11 EAST FORT MYERS 4 PUNTA BASSA 12 BLIND PASS 5 SHELL POINT 13 PINE ISLAND SOUND * 6 CAPE CORAL PARKWAY 14 PINE ISLAND CENTER * 7 IIARNEY POINT . 15 RATLACHA 0 3 4 5(Miles) 8 IONA, 16 BOCA GRANDE SWfRPC, DEC 87- RNC V ~MAP I LEE.COUNTY SLOSH MODEL STORM HISTORY POINTS' M-M-M- CHARLOTTE CO.,, 3~~~~ 5 1 7- ' r- -IrN C) . -n II '7- 1 m 0 H I w IA LEGEND NOTE: FLOOD HEIGHTS AT SHORELINE UP TO 9 FEET V7A60VE MEAN LJ SEA LEVELJMSL) K]UP TO 12 FEET F ABOVE MSL 72UP TO 17 FEET L2 ABOVE MSL* F1UP TO 20 FEET E~lUP TO 23 FEET ABOVE MSL I I , I I I ! ~ MAP 2 *21V LEE COUNTY / MAXIMUM AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOODING IBY'STORM CATEGORY. 0 1 2 MILES I TABLE 1 PREDICTED COASTAL STORM SURGES SIMULATED BY SLOSH MODEL- LANDFALLING STORMS (If a point is over water, surge is reported in feet flooding above msl; if a point is on land, surge reported in feet above land at that point)* of is ELEVATION OF POINT STORM I - 2 8 1.- '1.0.. 9 11 6 - 8 ..' 7 9 8 10 6 8 5 10 5 7 5 12 2 9 5 6 7 8 - 4 5 8 5 8 CATEGORY 3 4 5 GRID POINT 17 ]. 8 14 16 17 18 20 15 21 17 8 11 14 10 15 13 Fort Myers Beach Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Sanibel Punta Rassa Shell Point Cape Coral Parkway Hlarney Point Iona River New Bridge East Fort Myers Blind Pass Pine Island Sound Pine Island Center Matlacha Boca Grande 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 1 5 15 1 1 5 1 1 14 14 12 13 14 13 14 12 17 13 4 9 12 11 12 10 16 17 13 16 17 17 19 16 23 10 11 10 13.5 10 15 12 I I I *See Map 1 for grid point locations. I I I Although storms cannot be accurately forecasted in regard to storm behavior, the 187 simulations did provide insights into the differences in pre-landfall flooding for landfalling, paralleling, and crossing storms. These differences are summarized in Table 2 for hurricane eye location and points of worst impact.- Table 3 summarizes the nature of flood and wiand_- variation based on whether the storm is landfalling, crossing, or paralleling. Appendix A summarizes the pre-eye landfall hazard times that the County may experience. I I I I II-B--4 I TABLE 2 HURRICANES SIMULATED BY NUMERICAL STORM SURGE PREDICTION MODEL 1, C O A C T M A E O T T G : LANDF D Y I O E P O R CLO L E N Y SL L 5NS 1 :Sanibe SL L 5NS 2 :Sanibe SL L 5NS 3 :Sanibe SL L 5NS 4 :Sanibe SL L 5NS 5 :Sanibe FALL/EXITING POINT OR )SEST APPROACH AREA RECEIVING MAXIMUM SURGE/WINDS :1 Island. - l Island el Island e1 Island 31 Island Fort Myers Beach Fort Myers Beach Fort Myers Beach Fort Myers Beach Fort Myers Beach Fort Myers Beach Fort Myers Beach Fort Myers Beach Fort Myers Beach Fort Myers Beach 1 :Sanibel-Captiva 2 :Sanibel-Captiva 3 :Sanibel-Captiva 4 :Sanibel-Captiva 5 :Sanibel-Captiva ST. SL SL SL SL L O1NS L IONS L 10NS L IONS L 1ONS SL L 15NS SL L 15NS SlT L 15NS SL L 15NS SL L. 15NS SL L 20NS S L 20ONS ST, L 20NS SL L 20NS SL L 20NS- I :Captiva Island 2 :Captiva Island 3 :Captiva Island 4 :Captiva Island 5 :Captiva Island 1 :Upper Captiva Island 2 :Upper Captiva Island 3 :Upper Captiva Island 4 :Upper Captiva Island 5 :Upper Captiva Island 1 :Cayo Costa 2 :Cayo Costa 3 :Cayo Costa 4 :Cayo Costa. 5 :Cayo Costa I :Gasparilla Island 2 :Gasparilla Island 3 :Gasparilla Island 4 :Gasparilla Island 5 :Gasparilla Island Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee -R4iv'er Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloo'sahatchee River Caloosahatchee River Caloosahatchee River I I I I I SL L SL L SL L SL L SL L SL L Sr L S, L KEY: Sl - L - C - 25NS 25NS 25NS 25NS 25NS 30NS 30NS 30NS 30NS 30NS SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) Model Landfalling Hurricane Crossing Hurricane (Exiting Hurricane) P .- Paral]el.ing HIurricane . SS - South of Sanibel 'Islahd ' "" NS - North of Sanibel Island II-B-5 TABLE 2 (Continuedi HURRICANES SIMULATED BY NUMERICAL STORM SURGE PREDICTION MODEL L C 0 A C T M A E 0 T T G : LANDFALL/EXITING POINT D Y I 0 OR AREA RECEIVING E P 0 R : CLOSEST APPROACH MAXIMUM SURGE/WINDS L E N Y : , o Sanie w. of Sanibel w. of Sanibel w. of Sanibel w. of Sanibel 1 :30 2 :30 3 :30 4 :30 SL P 3OWS SL P 3oWS SL P 30'S SL P 30WS mi. mi. mi. mi. Sanibel Sanibel Sanibel Sanibel w. of Sanibel w. of Sanibel w. of Sanibel w. of Sanibel Fort Myers Beach Fort' Myers Beach Fort Myers Beach Fort Myers Beach Shell. Point Shell Point Shell Point SL SL Sl SL SL SL SL P 45WS P 45WS P 45WS P 45WS C 15SS C 15SS C 15SS 1 :45 2 :45 3 :45 4 :45 mi. mi. mi. mi. I I 1 :Fort Myers 2 :Fort Myers 3 :Fort Myers I I 1 :Sanibel 2 :Sanibel 3 :Sanibel 1 :Naples 2 :Naples 3 :Naples Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Ft. Myers Beach Bridge SL SL SL SL ST, SL C O S C O S C 0 S C 15NS C 15NS C 15NS I I KEY: SIL - SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from L - Landfallin?g Hurricane C - Crossing Hurricane (Exiting Hurricane) - Paralleling Hurricane SS - South of Sanibel Island NS - North of Sanibel Island WS - West of Sanibel Island Hurricanes) Model I I I I II-B-6 TABLE 3 SELECTED STORM TRACTS BY CATEGORY AND TYPE STORM CRARACTERISICS STORM TRACK STORM CHARACTERISTICS STORM TRACK 5(1) S(3) S (2) S(2) S(1) W(.) W(M) W(l) W(2) W(2) W(2) W(l) W(2) W(3) W(3) W(3) W(1) 15E S-P--2 o S-P-2 3OWS-P-2 GOWS-P-2 15ES --P--3 o S-P-3 30W5-P-3 50WS-P-3 15SS-C--1 15NS-C-1 459S--C--2 I5SS-C-2 15NS---C--2 45SS-C-3 15SS-C-3 15NS-C-3 S (2) S(3) 5(2) S(1) S(3) S(4) S(2) S(2) W(1) W(2) W(l) W(2) W(3) W(2) W(1) 5SS-L--l 155NS--L--1 35NS -L- 1. 55NS-L-1 75NS-L-1 5SS- L-2 15NS-L-2 35NS-L-2 55SS--L--2 75NS-I,--2 S(1) S(3) S(3) S(3) S(2) 5(I) W(1) S(2) W(1) 45SS-L-3 25SS-L-3 5SS-L-3 15NS-L-3 35NS-L-3 55NS-L-3 75NS-L-3 S(1) S(3) S(4) S(4) S(3) S(3) 5(1) st2) S(2) S(2) s(3) S(2) W(1) w(1) W(1) W(2) W(2) S(2) S(3) W(l) S(2) 5(1) 15ES-P-1 0 S-P-1 30WS-P-l 6OWS-P-1 KEY: SS - South of Sanibel NS - North of Sanibel ES - East of Sanibel WS - West of Sanibel S - Storm Surge L - Landfalling P - Parallel C - Crossing W - Wind (over 40 mph) (1) - Category 1 (2) - Category 2 (3) - Category 3 (4) - Category..4.. Saffir-Si mpSon Scale Surge Wind Category Category Category Category Category (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 4 - 5 ft. 6 - 8 ft. 9 -12 f`t. 13 -138 ft. 18+ feet 74-95 mph .96-l10 mph 111-130 mph 131-155 mph 155 + mph Recent Storm History Hurricane Donna was the last hurricane to affect Lee County to any significant degree. At the time the hurricane hit, the County's population was 56,000, concentrated primarily in Fort My-ers and the unincorporated inland are.as. of 1Lee t 116rri cane Donna"'was a strong Category 3 when it-passed over the area, but because the eye hugged the coast so closely, storm II-B-7 ! surges were much less than they could have been. Tides at Punta Rassa were 6.4 feet above msl, Fort Myers Beach had 8.1 feet and high tide lines were found at the 10-foot contour bordering the Estero and Imperial Rivers. Estero Island was swept by tides and wave action which lowered 5 to 7 foot dunes by several feet, exposing and undermining foundations and toppling homes. In the South Banks area of Captiva Island, tides of 4 to 5 feet above normal overtopped the island, cutting through the narrow beaches to the bay in several places. A new entrance was cut to Blind Pass about one-fourth mile south of the Blind Pass Bridge. In Lee County, the Bonita Beach area was hardest hit, because nearly all beachfront homes were badly damaged.., or destroyed. Those farther inland sustained tidal flooding' with only minor structural damage. Estimated damage totaled $16,449,000. Hurricane Floyd provided the area a scare on October 16, 1987. However, it veered due east before the County received any impacts beyond gale force wind gusts and 6-7 inches of rain which flooded four of the five main evacuation routes. A voluntary evacuation order put approximately 850 persons in public shelters and an unknown number in area hotels, homes, and out of region locations. Affected Population Each zone depicted on Map 2 encompasses large segments of the County population. Each one has a certain degree of vulnerability to the threat of hurricane induced flooding. Category 1 zones have the most repeated threat potential, whereas it is highly unlikely (but the potential exists) that category 5 areas will need to evacuate during the comprehensive plan horizon. Each zone, as drafted, mimics the coastline. Geographically, however, these zones are too cumbersome to assess the timing and shelter needs -of the population. Consequently, in association- with the Lee County Emergency Management Division, new subzones were created consistent with the existing evacuation routes, natural and manmade barriers and neighborhood or community boundaries where possible. As much as possible, subzones were identified with commonly understood names. These subzones are depicted on Map 3. The first element in preparing an estimate of County population is to estimate dwelling units, and dwelling Unit types.. By counting roof-tops from a 1987 Lee County REDI-book '(aerial photograph), supplemented by information on RV Parks from the Department of fHealth and Rehabilitative Services and information from the Florida Department of Community Affairs, it is estimated that there are 166,930 dwellings in the county. . This estimate includes conventional housing, mobile homes, and transitional housing such as inhabited travel trailers, and hotel and motel units. The greatest concentration of. these, 62% are lopatq.d in ...." t-e C.tegory I Zone.--- Table 4 provides the'estimat:e-off dwellng- ... ' units in the County by flood zone and by subzone name. II-B-8 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - . -9 BOCA I I N.E. RIVER/ALVA GRANDE NORTH FORT MYERS J NORTH FORT MYERS , ] 0 LEGEND A. OLD FORT MYERS B. CENTRAL FORT MYERS C. SUMMERLIN D. PAGE FIELD/VILLAS 2 MILES E. WEST SOUTH FORT MYERS SWFRPC,RNC I MAP 3 LEE COUNTY EVACUATION ZONES TABLE 4 LEE COUNTY - HOUSING UNITS Hotel- Motel Residential Single-Family Mobile Recreational Home Vehicle Storm Category Condo Total Apartment Zone 166 3,648 3,015 2,532 23 6,133 5,707 2,018 455 0 1,204 0 697 90 475 0 92 0 156 526 1,651 69 298 54 1,266 77 619 803 25,976 10,814 13,100 7,169 19,867 17,087 3,363 5,210 1. Boca Grande 473 1 Pine Island/Cape Coral 13,204 1 Sanibel/Captiva 5,223 1 N. Ft. Myers/River 7,814 1 N.E. River/Alva 3,621 1'. Iona/Cypress Lake 7,244 1 Ft.Myers Beach/Estero 3,990 1 Bonita Bch./Spring Creek 744 8 3,713 531 326 1,869 3,250 1,675 111 148 0 3,141 299 0 1,121 1,724 3,804 157 0 0 540 95 1,662 147 987 645 164 1,268 2,720 1 Old Fort Myers - _ - - -- - --- -- - - __ -----------___- -- -� 11,631 10,246 23,697 2,558 4,716 103,389 45,033 5,508 TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 1 7,912 3,509 6,158 2,892 5,211 6,908 753 7 q1 155 0 1,967 0 672 2,507 6 1) CZ C 1,037 141 621 14 2,620 245 �O ;:'qrx 170 208 0 0 852 0 a0 q,... n 244 50 153 0 270 102 0 n 2. 2: 2: 2 H n 2- 2. Bonita Springs San Carlos Park Central Fort Myers W.S. Fort Myers Summerlin Tice Orange River 2,954 3,024 2,992 1,306 261 3,277 148 1: ron" 1,347 86 378 1,271 242 602 365 ' no 2,005 0 47 301 294 175 234 o 2 North Cape Coral 3,8Z ,2 UY I0 , tbl TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 2 17,854 5,800 3,063 5,575 5,213 2,150 819 40,474 3. E.S. Fort Myers 711 0 0 0 20 0 0 731 3 Page Field/Villas 1,524 0 0 81 147 14 575 2,341 3 Six Mile/Ortiz 367 6 0 336 0 0 0 709 3 North Fort Myers 1,882 8,093 1,337 69 0 0 485 11,866 TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 3 4,484 8,099 1,337 486 167 14 1,060 15,647 4 Lehigh North 375 279 0 62 49 0 0 765 4 Gateway 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 18 4. Corkscrew 89 0 0 0 49 0 0 138 TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 4 472 289 0 62 98 0 0 921 5 Lehigh South 4,772 0 0 323 1,275 0 124 6,494 5. East County 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 a _ _T.S9 _ FI ZOi _ 4,7 _ _ G 0 * in3 _ 1I M _ 4 024 8.4 Using the housing unit estimate, a population estimate is then I made. Two additional assumptions, however, are needed: persons per household, and vacancy rate. Persons per household was estimated at a standard of 2.4 persons per household, regardless e of unit. Whereas this assumption has inaccuracies, the end result probably does not differ significantly from a more detailed analysis. More detailed analysis, however, is needed to 3 determine vacancy rates for unit type, since different unit types have different vulnerability to flood or wind hazards. Using a survey estimate developed from postaL vacancy rates and calling 3 businesses listed in the phone book, two estimates of seasonal a vacancy were prepared. These are as foll'ows: Unit Type Seasonal Occupancy Rates I -July November Single-Family Unit 97% 97% Duplex 94 93 I Apartment 70 78 Condominium (Conventional) 51 64 Mobile Hlome 43 75 m3 ~ Travel Trailer 18 41 Motel/Hotel 54 63 3 Lee County is estimated in 1987 to average 278,741 persons in July and 318,222 persons at the start of November. This is summarized by subzone in Table 5. Numerically, the greatest seasonality occurs in Hurricane Category Zone 1, which has * 187,944 persons in July and 223,703 in November, an increase of 16%. 3 TABLE 5 LEE COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR EVACUATION ZONES Storm Population Estimates Category - Zone July November _ _ 1 ~ Boca Grande 1,514 1,606 I Pine Island/Matlacha 8,500 9,318 Cape Coral 36,198 39,724 Sanibel/Captiva 18,826 20,714 m| ~ North Fort Myers/River 19,559 20,579 North River 6,519 6,860 N.E. River/Alva 1],707 13,859 I~ ~lona/Cypress Lake 31,270 36,820 '3~ ~ Fort Myers Beach/Estero 22,371. 27,934 Bonita Beach/Spring Creek 4,969 5,814 Old Fort Myers 9,974 10,607 I Mobile Htomes & Recreational Vehicles 16,537 29,868 not otherwise included in the above flood prone areas (Category 2-5 Areas) TOTAL AREA 1 187,949,. 223..,703. ....X - .E '*:'7 II-B-l11 TABLE 5 (Continuedl LEE COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR EVACUATION ZONES Storm Population Estimates Category Zone July November ; 2 Bonita Springs 11,362 13,906 ':~ ~ San Carlos Park 7,836 7,952 Central Fort Myers 11,638 12,558 W.S. Fort Myers 4,499 5,646 Summerlin .7,593 8,925 Tice 12,9.70 14,108 Orange River 833 1,243 North Cape Coral 13, 802 15,161 Mobile Hlomes & Recreational Vehicles 9,228 16,414 not otherwise included in the above flood prone areas (Category 3-5 Areas) ;NEW EVACUEES 63,224 66,045 TOTALS 1 - 2 251,168 289,748 3 E.S. Fort Myers 1,679 1,686 Page Field/Villas 4,641 4,826 Six Mile/Ortiz l1,418 1,494 North Fort Myers 14,056 21,126 Mobile Homes & Recreational Vehicles 298 520 not otherwise included in the above flood prone areas (Category 4-5 Areas) NEW EVACUEES 12,864 13,238 TOTALS 1 - 3 264,032 302,986 4 Lehigh North 1,325 1,566 Gateway 29 37 Corkscrew 267 282 Mobile Homes & Recreational Vehicles 0 0 - - not otherwise included in the above flood prone areas (Category 5 Area) NEW EVACUEES 1,323 1,365 TOTALS 1 - 4 265,355 304,351 I . 5 Lehigh South 13,374 13,859 East County 12 12 I ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW EVACUEES 13,386 13,871. ~!'~ ~ TOTALS 1 - 5 278,741 31S,222 Motor Vehicles Nearly all of the population affected by an oncoming hurricane will evacuate by private vehicle. The question arises over how many vehicles will be used in the. evacuation. Issues relevant to this include thc: number of' vehicles own'ed, whether' (wners woul '"" be willing to leave any vehicles behind (since next to the home, II-B-12 I vehicles.are the most expensive possession), whether all drivers feel confident to operate a vehicle in storm conditions, and whether evacuating families wish to be separated in different motor vehicles. Based on surveys, respondents indicated approximately 75% of available vehicles would be used in an evacuation. (Hurricane Evacuation Plan, 1981-82, SWFRPC). This averaged out to 1.1 vehicles per occupied unit. Using this ratio of cars, and the occupancy ratio used previously, the total number of county vehicles used in an evacuation in July would be 127,487,- .and in November would be 146,019. Category I Zones again have the greatest number of vehicles, 78,367 (85,078 with mobile homes outside the Category 1 area) in July and 89,187 (100,892 with mobile homes) in November. Table 6 summarizes the vehicle generation by each community. TABLE 6 LEE COUNTY VEHICLE ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION MOBILE HOME & JULY REC. VEHICLES MOBILE HOME & REC. VEHICLES NOVEMBER CATEGORY ZONE 1 Boca Grande 1 Pine Island/ Matlacha 1 Cape Coral 1 Sanibel/Captiva 1 N.Ft.Myers/River 1 North River 1 Alva/North River 1 Iona/Cypress Lake 1 Fort Myers Beach/ Estero 1 ; Bonita Beach/ Spring Creek 1 Old Fort-Myers 2 Bonita Springs 2 San Carlos Park 2 Central Ft. Myers 2 W.S. Fort Myers 2 Summerlin 2 Tice 2 Orange River 2 North Cape Coral 3 E.S. Fort Myers 3 Page Field/Villas 3 Six Mile/Ortiz 3 North Fort Myers 4 Lehigh North 4 Gateway 4 Corkscrew 5 Lehigh South East County '' ;. 695 3,882 16,548 8,612 8,965 2,989 5,346 14,300 10,185 ( o) (2,321) ( o) ( 304) ( 0) ( 154) (1,086) (1,847) (1,477) 737 4,383 18,685 9,527 9,433 3,144 6,307 16,805 12,646 2,659 4,861 6,291 3,645 5,754 2,576 4,080 6,460 560 6,949 773 2,210 685 9,628 717 17 129 6,353 ( 7) (2.820) ( 0) ( 605) ( 0) ( 269) (2,002) (3,388) (2,942) ( 156) ( 12-2) (1,933) ( 71) ( 331) (1,172) ( 321) ( 569) ( 397) (1,248) 0) ( o) ( 5) (7,225) ( 230) ( 8) ( O) ( O) r. .:C(.-.s;..._,y'( II 2,274 4,571 5,172 3,592 5,333 2,057 3,475 5,942 378 6,325 770 2,127 654 6,418 607 14 122 6,129 5 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 81) 70) 998) 41) 187) 655) 168) 317) .215) 715) 0) 0) 3) 4,069) 132) 5) 0) 0) ' 0) ' .- . 5.:, 127,487 (14,845) 146,019 (25,821) II-B-13 I Shelters. Evacuees must have a place to go. The SWFRPC undertook surveys in 1979 and 1981 to determine evacuee preferences. This data is summarized as follows: public shelters (24%), leaving the County (341%), visit friends or go to hotel or stay home or "other" (21%), "don't know" (21%). Those are preference declarations; other studies indicate there is a significant variation from preference to actual behavior. For example, income level, available warning time, and what local officials tell evacuees to do, can change behavior. Additionally, the severity of impending storms or perception of risk may also change decisions, as increased community-wide evacuation .limits or eliminates the hotel/ friends/public shelter/stay home prediction. At this time, the County has thirty public shelters, with a capacity (at 20 square feet per person) of 59,670 persons. These shelters are summarized in Table 7, by vulnerability zone. They are depicted on Map 4. Additionally, an unknown number of shelter spaces may exist within mobile home parks. IJUnfortunately, records of these shelter spaces have not been kept. Based upon the evacuees forecasted in Table 5, the county has limited public shelter capacity. For example, the county can accommodate 31.7% of the evacuees of Category 1 storm in July, but only 26.7% in November. Table 8 summarizes the County's public shelter capacities for storms. I I I I I TABLE 7 LEE COUNTY PRIMARY SHELTERS Capacity at 20 sq. ft. per person Zone* Vulner- ab i4 i 3 Beyond 5 Beyond 5 3 4 3 1, 3 2 3 3 2 4 I I I I I Red Cross Managed Shelter Allen Park Elementary School Alva Elementary School Alva Middle School Bayshore Elementary School Address Canelo Drive Center St. & Church Ave. Center St. & Church Ave. Williams Rd. off Bayshore W- Terry Street Del Prado Blvd. Del Prado Blvd. Santa Barbara Blvd. High Street Edgewood Avenue Euclid Avenue River Ranch Rd. off 530 1,040 1,460 1,570 3,110 2,610 2, 770 6,390 720 36C 190 Ron:ita Middle School Caloosa Elemcntary School. Caloosa Middle School Cape Coral Iligh School Dunbar Community School Edgewood Elementary School Edison Park Elementary Estero }Iigh School Corkscrew Rd. 3,260 4 *Vulnerability accounts.for both flood.and wind hazards...Nube....::. _NA.-_ rc:presents that catego-ry storm and aibove for wh.ich th" shelt er . cannot be used. l1-B-14 | CHARLOTTE CO., 20-M~~- 0 LE�GEN'D NOTE: FLOOD HEIGHTS ATY SHORELINE UP TO 9 FEET IiiA'BOVE MEAN LZJSEA LEVEL(MSI FiUP TO 12 FEET F1ABOVE MSL iL) UP TO. 17 FEET ABOVE. MSL MAP 4 LEE COUNTY RED CROSS MANAGED PUBLIC SHELTER LOCATIONS TABLE 7 (Continuedl LEE COUNTY PRIMARY SHELTERS Capacity at 20 sq. ft. eE 2erson Zone* Vulner- abilitx Red Cross Managed. Shelter Address Fort Myers figh School Cortez Rlvd. Franklin Park Elementary Ford Street J. Colin English Elementary Pine Island Road Lee County Vocational/Tech. Michigan Avenue LeHigh Elementary School. Schoolway C'ourt LeHigh Middle School Arthur Avenue Mariner High School Chiquita'Blvd.- & Tropicana Pkwy. North Fort Myers High School Orange Grove Blvd. Orange River Elementary Underwood Dr. off SR 80 Orangewood Elementary School DeLeon Avenue Pelican Elementary School SW 3rd Avenue Riverdale High School Buckingham Rd. off SR80 San Carlos Elementary School Lee Rd. off Alico Rd. Spring Creek Elementary US 41 SE Sunshine Elementary Sunshine Rd. off Lee Blvd. Tanglewood Elementary School Manchester Blvd. Tice Elementary School Tice Street Villas Elementary School Beacon Blvd. 2,920 1,350 670 1, 640 690 3,020 3,260 1,040 180 490 2,720 6,070 2,940 2,580 2,510 3 2 3 4 Beyond 5 --Beyond 5 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 4 Beyond I 1,310 1, 140 1, 130 2 4 2 I TOTAL: 30 Shelters CAPACITY: 59,670 persons I LEE COUNTY POSSIBLE SECONDARY SHELTERS Capacity at 20 sq.ft per Name person Cypress Lake High 4,080 Edison Community College 3,233 2,100 Civic Center 2,470 Community Center (Lee Rd.) 140 Gulf Elementary 2,580 Gulf Middle 4,550 Lee County Library 670 Lehigh Library 190 Nature Center 250 Suncoast School 5,700 University of So. Florida 650 Zone Vulnerability 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 Beyond 5. 3 3 2 ,, I I ' I I TOTAL: 11 Shelters CAPACITY: 26,613 persons I *Vulnerability accounts for both flood and wind hazards. represent.s that category storm a-nd above. :for -which- the cannot be used. - Number shelte,l�r. I I II-B-16 TABLE 8 PUBLIC SHELTER CAPACITY STORM EVACUEES PERCENT MET CATEGORY SPACE JULY NOVEMBER JULY NOVEMBER 1 59,670 187,949 223,703 31.7 26.7 2 45,370 251,168 289,748 18.1 15.7 3 23,580 264,032 302,986,. 8.9 7.8 4 8,720 265,355 304;35l1' 3.3 2.9 5 N/A� Public shelter within the county are Dot the only means of meeting evacuee shelter needs. Regretfully, they seem to be the largest. Other options for evacuees include "friends," hotels and one's own home (refusal to leave). Of these, only the m commercial (hotel) option can be assessed. In Lee County, there are an estimated 6,719 hotel/motel rooms. By far the greatest portion (70%) of the rooms are located on the shoreline or are in the Category 1 storm surge zone. This leaves only 2,003 units I available in a Category 1 storm, 1,184 in Category 2 and only 124 in Category 3, 4, and 5 storms. m The 2,003 units at 100% occupancy (4 persons per room), would satisfy 4.8% of the demand for shelter in July and 3.7% in November in a Category 1 storm. In a Category 2 storm, only 2.1% in July and 1.7% in November will be sheltered in this fashion. Category 3 and greater storms, the percentage is less than 1. In summary, the table below shows how much of the county evacuee needs are met by the available public and. commercial hote]/mot.l. shelter space. 3 Storm Category 1 = 36.5% July, 30.4% November Storm Category 2 = 20.2% July; 17.4% November Storm Category 3 = 8.9% July; 7.8% November Storm Category 4 = 3.3% July; 2.9% November Storm Category 5 = -N/A � Without public or private commercial space available, evacuees have only the options of (a) staying with friends who are in safer areas within the county or (b) leaving the county for areas of the state expected to be less affected by the hurricane. The ability of "friends" to shelter evacuees is limited. The shelter capacity of those staying with friends decreases rapidly as the ratio of evacuees to those not affected increases. This problem is depicted in Table 9. II-B-17 TABLE 9 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT RATIO STORM CATEGORY POPUTLATION DISPLACED NOT DISPLACED RATIO July November July November July November 94,519 2.1:1 2.4:1 1 187,949 223,703 90,792 2 251, 168 289,748 27,573 28,474 9.1:1 10.2:1 14,709 15,236 18.0:1 .19.9:1 13,386 13,871 19.8:1 21.9:1 264,032 302,986 3 4 I 265,355 304,351 5------------------------- N/A ----------------------- It is an assumption that ratios of 1:1 or better (0.8:1, 0.6:1) will enable those seeking shelter with friends will find them. Ratios of worse than 1:1 (2.1, for example), will diminish that likelihood in proportion to the ratio. Given that assumption, only 48% of those evacuees from a Category 1 storm wishing to stay with friends will be able to do so (48%) in July and 42% in November). For Category 1 storms, those evacuees wishing to stay with friends (as opposed to leaving the county or staying in public shelters or hotels/motels) will probably find that they are able to do so. The SWFRPC 1981 Evacuation Plan estimates 13% of the evacuating population will take this option. However, the opportunity to stay with friends rapidly decreases as storm intensity increases (forcing more people to evacuate). In a Category 1 storm, the percentage of persons able to stay with friends has fallen to 6.2% in July and 5.5% in November. In a Category 2 storm, the numbers are further reduced to 1.4% in July-' and 1.3% in November; in a Category 3 storm, .7% and .7%, respectively; Category 4 storm, ..7% in July and .5% in November; and in a Category 5 storm, no one will be able to stay with friends. These percentages, added to the shelter populations absorb the remainder of "in county shelter" demand satisfaction. This is summarized in Table 10, below. TABLE 10 SHELTER SATISFACTION WITHIN LEE COUNTY I I I I I I I I I I PERCENT MET JULY NOVEMBER STORM CATEGORY 1 2 ... 3: .j. .... 4 3 5 42.7 35.9 21.6 18.7 9:. 6. ' : : 8,.5.~,..: />-' ~ ;' .; 4 , :,- 4.0 3.4 ------ N/A T_T_l$ ."| If shelter needs cannot be met within the county, they must be met outside the county. For this reason, a knowledge of routes and route capacities becomes important. | Routes Arterial roadways form the backbone of any hurricane evacuation effort. Lee County's roadway system provides relatively few options for evacuees coming from the coast. Those that do exist are depicted on Map 5, "Evacuation Routes." Identification of routes is the first step in assessing:the roadway system. The I next step is assessing roadway capacitie,s.. The capacities of these roadways have been developed based on their characteristics, tied to the assessment methodologies of the |Highway Capacity Manual, 1985.. These capacities are contained in Table ]1, and show that the roadways (at the 90/10 split) vary from a high hourly capacity at service level D of 2,410 trips for 1-75, to a low of 692 trips on Summerlin Road (CR 869) from Colonial Boulevard (SR 884) to Daniels Road. An important aspect of any route is its condition. Many routes along the shore are low lying. Their propensity to flood due to surge or tidal action causes their reliability to operate as a route to cease several hours before storm landfall. Appendix A depicts these possibilities. In most cases, however, winds, not shoreline flooding, will initially make roads unsafe for travel. The exceptions seem to be the Fort Myers Beach, Sanibel, Punta Rassa, Shell Point, Blind Pass and Boca Grande areas for m landfalling storms of Category 1 or 2 strength. This exception also appears to be the case during a landfalling Category 3 storm for Fort Myers Beach, Sanibel, Punta Rassa and Blind Pass. Rainfall flooding, however, may constitute a greater hazard to evacuation route operation than either early shoreline flooding or early winds. This is because roadways may flood and become partially or totally impassible early in an evacuation. Surch. areas have been documented for different storms and are depicted on Map 6. These are areas that must be passed before the 3M presupposed onset of heavy rains, which is eight hours before eye landfall3 Clearance Times Thiere are several contributing factors towards calculating community clearance time.. The first is the nature of the threat. Althoug,h there are no assurances that the County cannot be struck by Category 4 and 5 storms, the probabilities of this are low. The County does, however, lie subject to storms of Category 1, 2, and 3 strength in decreasing probability. With each storms of increasing strength, the number of persons at risk and evacuating vehicles also increase. ! II-B-19 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~H Alico Rd. '" " ~~ \/-? '~~( Corkscrew Rd. O F COLLIER CO. vky c o41 C887 0 2 3 4 Miles 8 ~~~- 866~ ~SWFRPC 87- RNC Bonita Beoch Rd. MAP 5 LEE COUNTY EVACUATION ROUTES TABLE 11 EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS LEE COUNTY PER- CENT NO HIGIIWAY PASSING TYPE ZONES MAXIMUM HRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) DESIGN SPEED (MPII) LANE # OF WIDTH LANES ' (FT.) TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT 50/50 70/30 90/10 ROUTE CR 869 (Summerlin Road) College Pkwy to Sanibel Causeway 4 12 70 Rur.Div. 2,355 CR 865 (Estero/Hickory/Bonita Matanzas Pass to Big Carlos Pass Big.Carlos Pass to Big. Hickory Pass Big Hickory Pass to Bonita Beach Road Hickory Blvd. to 1-75 CR 765 (Burnt Store Rd.) SR 78 (Pine Island Road) to Charlotte County Beach Road) 2 12 50 100 1,078 1,176 971 1,117 770 897 970 1,058 2 12 60 80 2 10 50 2 12 50 100 90 647 745 806 928 874 1,005 1,263 947 1,027 2 12 70 70 760 CR 767 (Stringfellow Blvd.) Bokeelia to St. James City CR 78 (North River Road) SR 31 to Hendry County 2 12 60 2 11. 60 1,061 671 707 497 881 557 954 604 80 100 Alabama Road SR 82 (Immokalee Rd.) to Leeland Heights Blvd. Alico Road US 41 to Corkscrew Rd. Cape Coral Parkway Chiquita Blvd. to the Cape Coral Bridge 2 12 60 70 1,482 788 775 982 1,064 965 1,046 2 l' 12 60 80 1,286 4 10 50 Sub.Div. 1,588 %'. TABLE 11 (Continued EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS LEE COUNTY PER- CENT NO HIGHWAY PASSING TYPE ZONES MAXIMUM [IRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT (LOS D) 50/50 70/30 90/10 LANE # OF WIDTH LANES ,(FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ROUTE College Parkway Cape Coral Bridge to US 41 Corkscrew Road US 41 to Alico Road 4 12 2 10 60 Sub. Div. 60 -- 1,975 70 1,103 664 827 896 Cypress Lake Drive McGregor Blvd. to US 41 2 12 60 100 1,264 766 948 1,027 Daniels Road US 41 to 1-75 Del Prado Blvd. SR 78 (.Pine Island Rd.) to Cape Coral Parkway Gaspar'illa Road Charlotte Co. to Boca Grande I-75 Charlotte Co. to Collier Co. US 41 Excluding 6L Toro Lane to Fountain Interchange ,! 2 12 4 12 6 12 60 100 1,129 752 938 1,016 60 Sub.Div. 60 Sub.Div. -- 1, 935 . 2 12 60 80 1,153 769 958 1,037 4 12 4 12 6 11 ! 70 Freeway 70 Rur.Div. 70 Sub.Div. 2,410 2,254 2,860 m ' _ _ i m - M _ - M m M - - -------- - - -m - -- TABLE 11 (Continued) EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS LEE COUNTY PER- CENT NO PASSING ZONES MAXIMUM HRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) LANE # OF WIDTII LANES ,(FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPH) HIGHWAY TYPE TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT 50/50 70/30 90/10 ROUTE SR 739 (Business 41) US 41' to SR 78 (Bayshore) SR 78 (Bayshore Rd.) to the ,Edison Bridge 2 12 60 100 1,086 774 902 977 4 12 60 Sub.Undiv. 1,599 SR 78 (Pine Island Rd./Bayshore Rd.) Strinigfellow Rd. to Piney Road 2 10 70 Piney Rd. to Hart Rd. 4 12 70 Hart Rd. to SR 31 2 12 70 100 100 1,131 2,036 1,246 602 707 750 872 Sub. Div. _-- 812 955 H SR 80. (Palm Beach Blvd.) I Seaboard Ave. to New York New York to SR 31 SR 31 t'o Buckingham Rd. Buck.ingham Rd. to Hendry Co. 4 12 2 12 4 12 2 12 1,;744 1,061 2,218 1,043 60 Sub.Div. 70 -- 70 Rur.Div. 70 -- 80 100 881 954 867 939 707 696 SR 82;(Anderson Ave./Immokalee Rd.) US 4i to Ortiz Ave. 2 Ortiz Ave. to 1-75 4 I-75.,-to Hendry Co. 2 1,279 2,244 1,015 12 60 12 70 12 70 70 90 895 970 843 914 Rur.Div. 719 677 SR 884 (Colonial/Lee/Leeland Hts./Joel Blvd.) McGregor Blvd. to Metro Pkwy. 4 12 60 Metro Pkwy. to 1-75 4 12 70 SR 82.:;(Immokalee Rd.) to SR 80 2 1 12 60 .#: Sub. Div. Rur. Div. 1,930 2,380 70 1j482 788 982 1,064 TABLE 11 (Continued_ EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS LEE COUNTY MAXIMUM HRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) PER- CENT NO PASSING ZONES LANE # OF WIDTH LANES (FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPH) TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT 50/50 70/30 90/10 HIGHWAY TYPE ROUTE SR 867 (McGregor Blvd.) US 41 to San Carlos Blvd. San-,Carlos Blvd. to Sum- merlin Rd. 690 854 925 100 1,138 2 11 50 1,941 4 12 60 Sub.Div. SR 865 (Gladiolus Dr./San Carlos US 41 to Summerlin Rd. 2 Summerlin Rd. to McGregor Blvd. 2 McGregor Blvd. to Estero Blvd. 2 Blvd.) 12 1,155 971 1,050 960 1,040 100 770 647 700 60 806 872 874 945 100 10 60 12 60 100 ,-4 :I 0 SR 31 Char;lotte Co. to SR 80 2 CR 869 (Summerlin Rd.) Colonial Blvd. to College Pkwy. 4 SR 884 (Colonial Blvd.) to Daniels Road 2 Ortiz. Ave. SR 80 (Palm Beach Blvd.) to Colonial Blvd. 2 Periwinkle Way/Sanibel-Captiva Road Blind Pass to the Sanibel Causeway 2 ,~ 878 '976 ' 649 809 80 10 60 1,957 12 60 11 50 Sub.Div. 692 860 879 912 1, 198 .971 512 637 647 638 794 806 70 100 10 50 100 10 50 _ - _ _ _ - _ - - _ - - _ - _ - _ TABLE 11 (Continuedl EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS LEE COUNTY PER- CENT NO HIGHWAY PASSING TYPE ZONES MAXIMUM HIRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) LANE # OF WIDTH LANES (FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPH) TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT 50/50 70/30 90/10 ROUTE Santa Barbara Blvd. SR 78 (Pine Island Rd.) to Cape Coral Parkway 4 10 50 Sub.Div. 1,607 Six Mile Cypress Pkwy. Colonial Blvd. to US 41 Alva Bridge 2 12 60 80 1,149 1,119 766 954 1,034 2 10 50 100 595 741 803 644 698 Cape Coral Bridge 2 15 50 100 972 517 Edison Bridge Matanzas Pass Bridge i.n Sanibel Causeway 2 12 50 100 859 1;078 517 770 644 897 698 970 2 12 50 100 2 12 50 100 NOTE: The Peak Hour Factor was assumed to be was assumed to be .75 in ALL cases. .95 and the Driver Population Factor I I-q 86 5 AIIco Rd. - Corkscrew Rd. GUL F ' Es"ero .' , fou ,,' "~\8,. L., COLLIER CO. t C C887\0 � 2 3 4 Miles .-7. 865 ClT SWFRPC 87- RNC Bonii,t / \ - j Beach Rd. ." !! MAP 6 LEE COUNTY. ROUTES SUBJECT TO RAINFALL FLOODING "/~ _ _' _l _ _ _ _ _ _1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other factors contributing to clearance time are the number of I vehicles evacuating, the capacity of roadways to carry evacuees, and behavioral tendencies. This translates into a number of hours it will take to move persons past any given point. The final factors are the number and distance of "tstopping" opportunities offered evacuees, and the distance to these | opportunities. If the total number of stopping opportunities needed are only ten miles inland, the time is much less for an evacuation than if they are 100 miles distant. I For certain communities within the County.,- times are less than for others. This variation is because pre-landfall flood conditionrs are not as bad, shelter locations are closer, and better quality evacuation routes are available. Table 12 summarizes pre-landfall flood conditions, Table 13 summarizes shelter distances and options, and Tabl]e 14 summarizes the time it takes to clear the most restrictive point on the route for each community for each of the slow, intermediate, and quick responses. The results of these tables compose the evacuation time. TABLE 12 *|~~ ~PRE-LANDFALL HAZARD CONDITIONS TIME TO COMMUNITY CATEGORY COASTAL FLOOD RAINFALL Fine Island/ 1 6.5 8 Cape Coral 2 7.0 8 3 8.0 8 Sanibel/Captiva 1 10.5 8 2 11.5 8 3 12.5 8 North Fort Myers/ 1 - 8 River - 2 1.0 8 3 2.5 8 N.E. River/Alva 1 - 8 2 -- 8 3 - 8 Iona/Cypress Lake 1 2.5 8 2 3.5 8 3 4.5 8 Ft. Myers Beach/ 1 10.0 8 Estero 2 l.0 8 3 1.1.5 8 Bonita Beach/ 1 7.0 8 Spring Creek 2 7.5 8 3 9.0 8 Old Ft. Myers 1 2.5 8 2 3.5 8 3 4.5 - 8 Bonita Springs 9 - 8. WIND 6.0 7.0 9. 0 6.0 7.5 9.5 4.5 6.0 _ _. 8.0 4.5 5.5 7.5 ,5.0 6.5 8.5 5.5 7.0 9.0 5.5 7.0 9.0 4.5 5.5 7.5 "::'' " ;" 9s^ {i ,.... I I TT _ -?7 I I TABLE 12 {Continuedl PRE-LANDFALL HAZARD CONDITIONS WIND I TIME TO FLOOD RAINFALL COMMUNITY CATEGORY COASTAL San Carlos Park Central Ft. Myers WS Ft. Myers Summerlin Tice Orange River North Cape Coral ES Fort Myers Page Fields/Villas Six Mile/Ortiz North Fort Myers 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6.0 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 0.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.0 9.0 5.5 7.5 5.5 7.5 5.5 7.5 5.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 I TABLE 13 DESIGNATIONS SHELTER AND OPTIONS I PUBLIC SHELTER NAME ESTIMATED* TRAVEL TIME CATEGORY ZONE I 1 Boca Grandc Pine Islanm Matlacha Cape C-ral Sanibel/ Captiva N. Ft.Myers, River N. River N.E. River, Alva Iona/Cypre: Lake Ft. Myers Beach/ EsterO' di / Lemon Bay High School West Charlotte Comm. Ctr. Mariner High School .6 hr. .6 hr. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mariner High School. .2 hr._ Cape Coral High School Pelican Elementary School Tanglewood Elementary School 1.0 hr. Villas Elementary School Caloosa Elementary School .3 hr. Caloosa Middle School N.Ft.Myers High School J.Colin EnglishE-lementary .1 hr. Bayshore Elementary School Alva Elementary School .5-hr. Alva Middle School Riverdale High School Ss Tanglewood Elementary School .3 hr. Villas Elementary School Orangewood Elementary School Tanglewood Elementary School .5 hr. Villas Elementary School ; . < Bonita Middl-e School': . - .. ' ' s. .. ' " I II-B-28 TABLE 13 ICgotinuedl SHELTER DESIGNATIONS AND OPTIONS PUBLIC SHELTER NAME ESTIMATED* TRAVEL TIME CATEGORY ZONE I Bonita Bch/ Spring Creek I Old Fort Myers I Mobile Homes Bonita Middle School Spring Creek Elementary School Estero High School Allen Park Elementary School Edison Park Elementary School Franklin Park Elementary School Fort Myers High School Orangewood Elementary School (2-5) . 25 hr. .1 hr. .8 hr. .1 hr. .1 hr. .1 hr. .2hr. .2hr. .1 hr. .1 hr. .1 hr. 2 All 1 Zones 2 Bonita Springs 2 San Carlos Park 2 Central Fort Myers All shelters in County except: Cape Coral High School Edgewood Elementary School Franklin Park Elementary School N.Ft.Myers High School Pelican Elementary School Tanglewood Elementary School Villas Elementary School Bonita Middle School Spring Creek Elementary School Estero High School San Carlos Elementary School Franklin Park Elementary School Dunbar Community School Lee County Vocational/Technical San Carlos Elementary School Orangewood Elementary School Allen Park Elementary School Dunbar Community School Lee County Vocational/Technical Orange River Elementary School Tice Elementary School Orange River Elementary School Riverdale High School Caloosa Elementary School Caloosa Middle School Mariner High School Alva Elementary School Alva Middle School Bonita Middle School Edison Park Elementary School Estero High School Lee County Vocational/Technical LeHigh Elementary School LeHigh Middle School San Carlos Elementary School Spring Creek Elementary School Sunshine: Elementary School Tice Elementary School I I I I a 2 2 WS Ft. Myers Summerlin 2 Tice 2 Orange River 2 N.Cape Coral 3 All I and 2 Zonees . IA 1I-B-29 I I I TABLE 13 (Continued) SHELTER DESIGNATIONS AND OPTIONS PUBLIC SHELTER NAME ESTIMATED* TRAVEL TIME CATEGORY ZONE 3 ES Ft. Myers 3 Page Field/ Villas 3 Six Mile/Ortiz 3 N.Ft.Myers San Carlos Elementary Edison Park Elementary Tice Elementary School Lee County Vocational/Technical Sunshine Elementary. School Lee County Vocatio.nal/Technical Tice Elementary School Edison Park Elementary Alva Elementary School Alva Middle School .2 hr. .25 hr. .8 hr. *Time it takes for a car traveling 30 mph to travel from the furthest point in the zone to the nearest shelter to the zone. A constricting point from Table 14 may represent an u].timate constricting point for more than 1 zone. That being the case, it may be expected that these times will become cumulative. This creates a "greatest time to clear" for the county as a whole. Table 15 depicts the "greatest time to clear" calculation for each category storm. TABLE 15 ULTIMATE CONSTRICTING ROUTE I I I I JULY NOVEMBER INTER- INTER- SLOW MEDIATE QUICK SLOW MEDIATE QUICK CONSTRICTING POINT I CATEGORY 1 SR 78 GW) 13.7 11.0 10.2 15.5 12.5 11.5_ I 2 SR 78 (W) 3 SR 78 (W) 24.2 19.4 24.2 19.4 18.0 27.0 21.8 20.1 18.0 27.0 21.8 20.1 I I I I N J I Clearly, route constriction becomes a concern when it is unevenly distributed between different parts of the County. The relative isolation of the Sanibel and Fort Myers Beach shoreline and the limited routes available limits evacuation capacity causing the large times. The possibility exists that increased traffic control can better distribute loadings. If that is the case, the : ultimate constricting points move to the sum of the routes exiting the County. Table 16 depicts the times that may occur, given different routing scenarios. Thle last factor to be incorporated into calculating the County clearance time is the response of potential evacuees to all. evacuation order. The original '1981-82 Regional' Rurricahne Evacuation Plan discussed this topic on page 125, and concluded II-B-30 --- -- - - - - -- - - - m - - m TABLE 14 TIME TO CLEAR JUllLY_ INTER- SLOW MEDIATE NOVEMBER INTER- QIJICK SLOW MEDIATE CATEGORY ZONE RESTRICTING POINT TO COUNTY LINE QUICK 1 Pine Island/ Ma t 1 a c h a Matlachla Bridge 6.4 13.7 13.3 3.5 .8 4.5 4.7 9.7 7.6 1.3 3.6 1.2 2.2 1.3 1.3 2.4 0.5 10.5 0.5 0,8 0.2 4.3 5.2 ]1.0 10.7 3.3 .8 3.8 4.5 7.8 6.1 1.2 2.9 1.1 2.0 1.1 1.2 2.3 0.4 8.4 0.4 0.7 0.2 3.6 4.8 7.3 5.8 5.4 11.5 10.8 3.4 .9 4.1 5.1 9.0 6.8 1.3 3.2 1. 1 2.1 1.2 1.4 2.4 0.6 8.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 5.0 1.0 -.6 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.0 1.2 1.3 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 .l: Cape Coral SR 78(W) &'llHunter B 1. vd. l Sanibel/Captiva Periwinkle .:1 N.Ft.Myers/River SR 78 (W) & Han- River cock Bridge Pwky. 1 North River SR 78 & SR 739 l NE River/Alva CR 78 & SR 80 1 Iona/Cypress McGregor & Lake Summerlin 1 Ft.Myers Bch./ SR 865 Estero l Bonita Beach/ Bonita Beach Rd. Spring Creek l1 Old Ft. Myers McGregor Blvd. 2 Bonita Springs Bonita Beach Rd. 10.2 15.5 12.5 9.8 3.3 .8 3.5 4.4 7.2 5.6 1.2 2.6 1.1 2.0 1.0 1.2 2.2 '0.4 7.8 0.4 0.7 0.2 3.3 14.7 11.8 3.7 3.5 .9 5.3 5.5 .9 4.4 5.2 12.1 9.7 9.2 7.4 1.4 : 1.3, 4.3' 3.5 1.2 1-.2 2.3 '2.2 2 '2 9 .2. ., 1; 1 O. ;.:: & Old IJS 41 Alico Road & Corkscrew Road SR 80 and 82 Daniels Rd. & Alico Daniels Road SR 80 and 82 SR 80 SR 78 (W) Daniels Road & Alico Road Daniels Road San Carlos Park Central Ft. Myers WS Ft. Myers Summerlin Tice Orange River N. Cape Coral ES Ft. Myers 1. 7 1.5 2.6 0.8 11.5 0.5 1.4 1.4 2.5 0.6 9. 3 0.4 Page Field/ 0.f8 0.8 0.2 0.2 6.5 5.4 Villas Six Mile/Ortiz Daniels Rd.& SR82 N.Ft. Myers SR 78(E) :' Old 41 TABLE 16 COUNTY EXITING ROUTES TOTAL CATEGORY VEIIICLES LEAVING CO. % OF TOTAL EVACUATING VEITICLES* TIMES ROUTES COMBINE-D CAPACITIES SLOW INTER- QUICK MEDIATE JUTLY SLOW INTER- QUICK MED) IATE NOVEM'BER SLOW INTER- QUICK MED IATE ,(a) 48,750(J) 64,672 (N) 57.3 US 41(N), 64.1 1-75(N), SR 31 SR 80 6,009 6,340 6,481 8.1 7.7 7.5 10.8 10.2 9.8 1(b) US 41(N), 1-75(S & E), SR 80 & 82 6,037 6,374 6,517 8.1 7.6 14.4 13.7 14.4 13.6 18.1 17.2 7.5 10.7 10.1 13.4 18.6 17.6 9.9 17.2 17.2 19.6 2(a) 86,743(J) 111,549(N) 78.4 81.3 same as l(a) same as l(b) same as l(a) H tI wI ro bo 2(b) 3(a) 1-3.3., 18.6 17.5 109,155(J) 127,218(N) 90;.4 91.5 16.& 21.2 20.0 3(b) :- same as l(b) 18.1 17.1 16.7 21.2 20.0 19.5 (a) = landfalling and crossing storms south of Lee County and paralleling storms (h) = landfalling and crossing .storms north of Lee County and paralleling storms '' = percent of total evacuating vehicles for that category storm plus mobile home/recreational vehicles in County. , .. .. m - - m - - - m _ m m _ m m m m - .:.., that seven hours would be the minimum time needed to clear a I zone, because some evacuees would dawdle more than others. More recent history indicates that sudden or dramatic changes in hurricanes can heighten the evacuees' response into a "tquick"f U evacuation, limited basically by road capacity. Consequently, in evaluating the final criteria that determines a slow, intermediate, or quick evacuation, both slow and intermediate zones will have a minimum response time of seven hours; "quick"t 3times, however, will be limited only by roadway capacity. All of these factors combine into creating a countywide clearance time. This time will. vary depending upon th-e.routes available for out- of-county evacuation, the time of season,.. and whether it isa slow, intermediate, or quick response. table 17 summnarizes the m contributioD to the greatest clearance time for the County fo-r * each category storm. The clearance time, for the County as a whole for Category .3 storms will inczrease if out-of-county evacuation is limited soley to I-75 (north) or UJS 41 (north). If more routes are provided, the time may lessen. This, of course, depends upon the impact on U the other evacuating counties. II-~B-33 TABLE 17 TOTAL EVACUATION TIME CLEARANCE SLOW INTER- MEDIATE TIME__ QUIICK TOTAL EVACUATION TIME DESTINATION(1) WEATHER(2) SLOW INTER- MEDIATE QUICK CATEGORY 13.7(J) 15.5(N) 11.0(J) 10.2(J) 25.8(J) 23.1(J) 22.3(J) 12.5(N) 11.5(N) 27.6(N) 24.6(N) 23.6(N) 1 2 1.6 1] 0.5 13.7(J) 11.0(J) 10.2(J) 26.3(J) 23.6(J) 22.8(J) 15.5(N) 12.5(N) 1.1.5(N) 28.1(N) 25.1(N) 24.1(N) 1. 1 11. 5 13.7(J) 11.0(J) 10.2(J) 15.5(N) 12.5(N) 11.5(N) 27.0(J) 24.3(J) 28.8(N) 25.8(N) 23.5(J) 24.8(N) 3 .8 12.5 (1) From Table 13 or 14, whichever is greater �,- (2) From Table 12 _ _ _ _ _ _ m _ _ _ m m m m - - m PART IT - 1991 FORECASTS I Part of hurricane preparedness involves understanding and e .evaluating the growth expected in the forthcoming years. This m - element discusses short ranged growth (4 years) the area may undergo, and the facilities that are expected to be added to serve it. The growth predicted follows a single s.traight-lined forecast technique of roughly 3.9% a year or approximately a 15,6% increase over the 4-year period. Applied uniformly, increases by I category and community for housing, persons, and vehicles for 1991 are depicted in Tables 18, 19, and 20. The 15.6% increase over 4 years was determined by the Bureau of Economic and I Business Research at the University of Florida from history growth trends between 1980 and 1987. | Table 18 forecasts a total of 192,975 dwelling units for 1991. Table 19 forecasts a total of 322,231 persons in July; and 369,6941 in Novemiber. Table 20 forecasts a total of 147,386 vehicles in July; and 168,820 in November. The additional facilities expected can be categorized as "shelters" and "routes". Regretfully, future shelter site and capacity information has not yet been exactly determined. Route * improvements, however, are better known. One new school a year is forecasted to be built in Lee m new school a year equates to approximately 2,000 shelter spaces-a year. The roughly 7,956 new spaces the County shelter capacity by 12% during a period County is expected to increase demand by 14.0%. summarizes the County's estimated 1991 public shelter by storm catesory. County. A additional increas-es- when the Table 21 capacities ' .' - ' " - - X ' ' ! :' ' , . .......... . ,,; , ;: p ;' ........... -; . '- i; I .. .. .. *" - .-"~~' '. . . . . .- II-B-35 TABLE 18 LEE COUNTY HOUSING ESTIMATES FOR 1991 Hotel- Motel Mobile Recreational flome Vehicle Multi-Family Resident i al Single-Family t cagory Total. Condo I)uplex Apartment Zolie . 192 4,217 3,485 2,927 27 7,090 6,597 2,333 526 I0 1,392 0 806 1041 549 0 1.06 0 180 608 1,909 80 344 62 1,463 89 71-6 928 30,028 12,502 15, 144 8,288 22,966 19,751 3,887 6,023 0 3,631 346 0 1,296 1,993 4,397 1.81 0 0 624 110 1, 921 170 1,141 746 190 1,466 547 1.5,264 6,038 9,033 4,186 8,371 4., 612 860 3, 144 9 4,292 614 377 2,1.61 3,757 1,9o36 128 171 R Boca Grande Pitne Islanud/C ape Coral 1 San 113(l /Caplt .i va I North For-t Myers/ 1?ivez- 1 North E'ast Rivpr/Alva 1 ~. lona/Cypress Lake 1 For-t Myers Bcach/Estero B Bonita Bench/Spring Creek 1 Old Fort Myers �-- - ---------------------�----�- -� 2,957 5,451 119,517 .13,445 11,844 6,368 27,394 FLOOD ZONE' I 52,058 TO'I'ALS 9,147 4,056 7, 11.9 3,343 6,025 7,985 871 8,243 179 0 2,274 0 777 2,898 7 310 1, 199 163 718 16 3,029 283 . I 0 .618 197 240 0 0 985 0 0 1,064 282 58 177 0 312 1.1 8 0 0 2 Bonita Springs 2 .San Carlos Par-k 2 --entral Fort Myers 2 W.S. Fort Myers 2 Summerlin 2 . Tice 2 Orange River 2 :North Cape Coral 1,557 99 437 1,469 280 696 422 1,744 2,318 0 54 348 340 202 271 8 3,415 3,496 3,459 1,510 302 3,788 171 4,499 H H rr ICw � ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ----- -- - -- --- -- - --�- --- - -- -- --�- TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 2 20,640 6,704 3,541 6,445 6,026. 2,486 947 46,789 3 E.S. Fort Myers 822 0 0 0 23 0 0 845 3 Page Field/Villas 1,762 0 0 94 170 16 665 2,707 3 Six Mile/Ortiz 424 7 0 388 0 0 0 819 3 North Fort Myers 2,176 9,356 1,546 80 0 0 561 13,719 TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 3 5,184 9,363 1,546 562 193 16 1,226 18,090 4 Lehigh North 434 323 0 72 57 0 0 886 4 Gateway 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 21 4 Corkscrew 103 0 0 0 57 0 0 1.60 - ------ - ---�------------------------ �� --. TOTAitS FLOOD ZONE 4 546 it 335 0 72 114 0 0 1;067 5 Lehigh South 5 East County 7,506 6 373 0 1,474 0 0 0 143 0 0 0 0 0 5,516 6 _-- _-------_-_------- - IWLSM Fio 7(LS - W - aft M ( O g73M M M M 3 -7,m m TABLE 19 LEE COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR 1991 Storm Population Estimates aI Category Zone July November 1. Boca Grande 1,750 1,856 3I~ ~ Pine Island/Matlacha 9,817 11,115 Cape Coral 41,854 47,389 Sanibel/Captiva 21,764 23,946 !|~ ~ North Fort Myers/River 2!2,612 23,790 North River 7,538 7,930 N.E. River/Alva 13,535 16,021 Iona/Cypress Lake 36,145 42,564 I � Fort Myers Beach/Estero 25,859 32,291 Bonita Beach/Spring Creek 5,741 6,721 Old Fort Myers 1.1,530 12,262 I| ~ Mobile Homes & Recreational 19,122 34,533 Vehicles, not otherwise included in the above flood prone areas (Category 2-5 Areas) TOTAL AREA 1 217,267 260,418 | 2 Bonita Springs 13,136 16,077 San Carlos Park 9,057 9,191 Central Fort Myers 13,455 14,521 I5~~ ~ W.S. Fort Myers 5,201 6,526 Summerlin 8,777 10,321 Tice 14,991 16,308 Orange River 963 1,438 I North Cape Coral 15,954 17,526 Mobile Homes & Recreational- 10,675 18,979 Vehicles, not otherwise I included in the above flood prone areas (Category 3-5 Areas) _ _ NEW EVACUEES 73,087 76,354 I)~~ ~ TOTALS 1 - 2 290,354 336,772 23 E.S. Fort Myers 1,942 1,949 I9~~ Paige Field/Villas 5,366 5,580 Six Mile/Ortiz 1,646 1,726 North Fort Myers 16;250 24,426 U - Mobile Homes & Recreational 345 604 Vehicles, not otherwise included in the above flood 3| ~ prone areas (Category '4-5 Areas) NEW EVACUEES ]4,874 15,306 I|~~ ~TOTALS 1 - 3 305,228 352,078 :'.% . - . .. . . : - ....................................... . II-B-37 I I TABLE 19 (Continuedl LEE COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR 1991 Storm Population Estimates Category Zone July November 4 Lehigh North 1,534 1,814 GaLeway 33 44 Corkscrew 310 328 Mobile Homes & Recreational 0 0 Vehicles, not otherwise inclu(led in the above flood .' prone areas (Category 5 Area) NEW EVACUEES 1,532 1,582 TOTALS 1 - 4 306,760 353,660 5 Lehigh South 15,457 16,020 East County 14 14 NEW EVACUEES 15,471 16,034 TOTALS 1 - 5 322,231 369,694 TABLE 20 LEE COUNTY VEHICLE ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION I MOBILE HOME & JULY REC. VEHICLES MOBILE HOME & REC. VEHICLES CATEGORY ZONE NOVEMBER I 1 Boca Grande 1 Pine Island/ Matlacha 1 Cape Coral 1 Sanibel/Captiva I N.Ft.Myers/River 1. North River 1 Alva/North River ' 1 Iona/Cypress Lake 1 Fort Myers Beach/ Estero : '1 Bonita Beach/ Spring Creek 1 Old Fort Myers ( 0) (2,684) ( 0) ( 352) ( 0) ( 178) (1,255) (2,136) (1,707) ( 94) ( 81) 851 5,607 21,599 10,962 10,903 3,635 7,289 19,427 14,619 3,067 5,620 ( 7) (3,259) ( 0) ( 649) 4) - ( 311) (2,314) (3,917) (3,400) ( 180) ( 141) 803 4,487 19,130 9,969 10,363 3,455 6,179 16,532 11,772 2,630 5,285 I I I I I I I 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .Bonita Springs San Carlos Park Central Ft. Myers W.S. Fort Myers Summerlin Tice Orange River North Cape Coral. 5,980 4,150 6,168 2,378 4,015 6,867 436 7,312 (1,153) ( 47) ( 218) ( 758) ( 193) ( 365) ( 249) (.. 826) 7,274 4,213 6,653 2,997 . 4,71.5 7,466 647 8, 031 (2,235) ( 82) ( 383) (1,355) ( 371) ( 657) ( 459) ( 1 ,44 ) 3 ., I II-B-38 TABLE 20 (Continued) LEE COUNTY VEHICLE ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION MOBILE HOME & MOBILE HOME & CATEGORY ZONE JULY REC. VEHICLES NOVEMBER REC. VEHICLES 3 E.S. Fort Myers 890 ( 0) 893 ( 0) 3 Page Field/Villas 2,459 ( 0) 2,638 ( 0) 3 Six Mile/Ortiz 754 ( 3) 791 ( 6) 3 North Fort Myers 7,420 (4-,703) 11,133 (8,353) 4 Lehigh North 703 ( 15') 831 ( 266) 4 Gateway 16 (. 6) 20 ( 10) 4 Corkscrew 142 ( 0) 150 ( 0) 5 Lehigh South 7,085 ( 0) 7,343 ( 0) 5 East County 6 ( 0) 6 ( 0) 147,386 (17,165) 168,820 (29,797) TABLE 21 1991 PUBLIC SHELTER CAPACITY* % Population Storm Shelter Evacuating Population __ Sheltered Category Space July November July November 1 67,626 217,267 260,418 31.1 26.0 2 53,326 290,254 336,772 18.4 15.8 3 31,536 305,228 352,078 10.3 9.0 4 16,676 306,760 353,660 5.4 4.7 5 16,676 322,231 269,694 5.2 4.5 * Assumes new shelter space is built at or above Category 5 flood level. Route improvements for the next 4 years indicate substantial improvements will be made to routes .exiting the Category 1 zone. Using the 1988-1992 TIP of the Fort Myers/Lee County Metropolitan Plann ing Organization as a guide, the following signif.icant improvements are forecasted: (a) Extending Metro Parkway from SR 884 (Colonial) to Six Mile Parkway. (b) Adding two lanes on CR 865 (Bonita Beach Road) from Hickory Boulevard to 1-75. c) n o.... ' . .....:... " (c) Adding two lanes on Cypress Lake Drive from McGregor Boul.evard to l!S 41. -r ^ I I (d) Adding two lanes on Daniels Road from UJS 41 to 1-75. I (e) Extending Daniels Road (4 lanes) from Airport Entrance, SR 82. to (f) Adding two lanes on College Parkway from the Bridge to US 41. (g) Adding two lanes on Summerlin Road from Gladiolus to SR 884 (Colonial). (h) Adding two lanes on Del Prado Boulevard from Cape Coral Parkway to Coralwood Drive. (i) Extending SR 884 (Colonial Boulevard) from 1-75 to SR 82. (j) Adding two lanes on SR 80 from New York Avenue to SR 31. (k) Replace the existing 2 lane SR 739 (Old US 41) including Bridge with a six-lane road to US 41. (1) Adding a center tuning lane on San Carlos Boulevard from Summerlin Road to Hurricane Pass. Even though the exact capacities of these new improvements cannot be calculated at this time, an estimate can be made. Table 22 provides a revision of the previously provided Table ll to represent 1991 conditions. TABLE 22 REVISED CAPACITIES I I I I I I I Old Capacity None (Quick) None 1,005 (Quick) 1,027 (Quick) 1,016 (Quick) None 1,975 1.,975 I,'935 (Quick) None 954 (Quick) New Capacity Route Metro Parkway from SR 884 to Daniels Road Metro Pkwy. from Daniels Rd. to Six Mile Pkwy CR 865 (Bonita Beach Rd.) from Hickory Boulevard to 1-75 Cypress Lake Drive from McGregor to US 41 Dani.els Road from UIS 41 to 1-75 D'aniels Rd. Ext. from Airport entrance to. SR 82 College Parkway from Bridge to UIS 41, Summerlin fromn Gladiolus to Colonial Del Prado Blvd. from Cape Coral Pkwy. to Coralwood Dr. Extend Colonial Blvd. from 1-75 to SR 82 SR 80 from New York Avenue to SR 31 SR 739 (Old IlS 41) including Bridge to US 41 San Carlos Bl,vd. from Summerlin Rd. to Rurricane Pass 1,975 1,021 1,898 1,935 2,169 2,386 2,903 2,906 2,903 1,017 1,876 2 792 1,029 945 (Quick) (Quick) As'uming thalt these-" improvements a're in ' place,' r'etw" shelter' satisfaction capacities (Table 10), tiime to clear (Table 14), II-B-40 I ultimate constricting route (Table 15), exiting route assessments (Table 16), and total evacuation time calculations (Table 17) can be made. m Shelter capacities for a Category 1. storm do not improve with the facilities projected because growth is out-stripping the capacity added. Since the methodology used was a single straight-line process, the only factors changing were the population (up 14%) and shelter space (up 12%). As a result, shelter satisfaction within the County will demonstrate a.decline for a Category 1 storm and a slight increase for Category 2 and higher storms. m Table 23 depicts this change... TABLE 23 SHELTER SATISFACTION, 1991 Percent Met Category July November 1 41.6 35.1 2 21.7 18.7 *I~ ~~ ~3 11.2 9.9 4 6.3 5.4 35 (1 <1 The decline for a Category 1 storm can only worsen evacuation and clearance times unless comparable out-of-county route improvements are made. Using the improvements listed, there are route improvements forecasted that improve in-county movement capacities. The most effective improvements are Bonita Beach Road, San Carlos Boulevard, Summerlin and Daniels Road. Table 24 depicts these changes. I II-B-41 TABLE 24 TIME TO CLEAR_ 1991 ____JULY _ NOVEMBE] INTER- INTER- SLOW MEDIATE QUICK SLOW MEDIATE R CATEGORY ZONE RESTRICTING POINT QUICK 1 Pine Island/ Ma t I acha Matlacha Bridge 7.4 6.0 5.5 8.4 6.8 6.2 13.3 12.5 4.0 1.0 4.7 5.1 9.5 3.8 1.5 2.6 1.3 2.3 0. 9 1.2 2.6 0.3 9.9 0.3 0.6 0.1 5.8 1 Cape Coral SR 78(W) & Hunter Blvd. 1 Sanibel/Captiva Periwinkle 1 N.Ft.Myers/River SR 78 (W) & flan- River cock Bridge Pwky. I North River SR 78 & SR 739 1. NE River/Alva CR 78 & SR 80 1- Iona/Cypress McGregor & ~" Lake Summerlin 1 Ft.Myers Bch./ SR 865 Estero 1- Bonita Beach/ Bonita Beach Rd. Spring Creek 1 !Old Ft. Myers McGregor Blvd. 2 Bonita Springs Bonita Beach Rd. 15.8 12.7 11.8 17.9 14.4 15.4 4.1 1.0 5.2 4.6 10.4 3.4 1.5 -2.3 1.4 2.4 0.8 1.0 2.6 0.2 12.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 5.0 12.4 3.9 1. 0 4.3 4.4 8.3 3.4 1.4 2.2 1.3 2.2 0.8 1.0 2.5 0.2 9.7 0.3 0.6 0.1 4.2 11.3 3.8 1.0 4.0 4.3 16.9 13.6 4.3 4.1 1.0 6.1 5.4 1. 0 5.1 5.2 7.7 12.9 10.3 H H I rI 3.4 1.4 2.1 1.3 2.2 0.7 1. 0 2.4 0.2 9.0 0.3 0.6 0.1 3.8 3.8 - 3.8 1.6 1.5 2.8 2:,6 1.4 1.3 2.6 2.4 & Old US 41 Alico Road & Corkscrew Road SR 80 and 82 Daniels Rd. & Alico Daniels Road SR 80 and 82 SR 80 SR 78 (W) Daniels Road & Alico Road Daniels ?oad Daniels Rd.& SR82 SR 78(E) & Old,41 2 2 2 2 9 2 2 3 3. 3! 3 San Carlos Park Central Ft. Myers WS Ft. Myers Summ'erlin Tice Orange River N. Cape Coral ES Ft. Myers Page Field/ Villas Six Mile/Ortiz N.Ft. Myers 0.9 1.2 2.7 0.3 10. 1 0.3 1. 0 1.2 2.9 0.3 13.3 0.3 0.6 '0.6 0.2 0.1 7.5 6.3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - m TABLE 25 ULTIMATE CONSTRICTING ROUTE_ 1991 INTER- SLOW MEDIATE QUITCK NOVEMBERf INTEl - SLOW MEDIATE QUICK CONSTRICTING POTNT CATEGORY 13.5 SR 78 (w) 15.8 12.7 11.8 17.9 14.4 SR 78 (w) SR 78 (W) 27.9 22.4 i20.8 2 3 31.2 24.5 31.2 24.5 23.4 23;4 27.9 22.4 ,20.8 RegreUtfull. y, none of the out-of-county routes have improvements slat.ed. Consequently, traffic growth combined with a reduced ability to provide shelter during a Category 1 increased out-of- county times. This is depicted in Table 26. Unfortunately, the only Category 1 zone which has a reduction in evacuation times is the Bonita Beach/Spring Creek zone. This reduction will occur because of four-laning Bonita Beach Road. Other zone evacuation times in the Category 1 area would have increased more if it had not been for the predicted transportation improvements. One transportation improvement which should be completed as soon as possible is the 4-laning of SR 78 west of US 41. If SR 78 was four-laned, the Cape Coral clearance times for November 1991 (the highest in the County) would be reduced from 17.9 hours to 8.2 hours during a Category 1 slow response. Consequently, the total evacuation time would be reduced from 30 hours to 20.3 hours for Cape Coral. Table 27 indicates that the total County evacuation time for 1991 can be expected to increase by approximately 2.5 hours. This can be prevented through more shelters in the County and improving critical evacu-ation routes such as SR 78 west of US 41 .... I I II-B-43 TABLE 26 COI_NTY EXITING ROUTES, 1991 TOTAL CATEGORY VEIICI,ES LEAVING CO. % OF TOTAL EVACUATING VEIIICLES* TIPMES ROUTES COMBINED CAPACITIES SLOW INTER- OUICK MEDIATE JULY NOVEMBER SI,OW IN'T'ER - fMED IATE QUICK SLOW TNTE-- QUIJTCK MEDIATE 1(a) 57,979(J) 77,009(N) 58.4 US 41(N), 6,1.9 --75(N), SR 31 SR 80 6,009 6,340 6,481 9.6 9.]. 8.9 12.8 12.1 11.9 1 (b) UJS 41(N), I-75(S & E), SR 80 & 82 6,037 6,374 6,51.7 9.6 9.1. 8.9 . 12. 1 11.8 2(a) 103,964(J) 124,917(N) 78.3 81.3 samle as l(a) 17.3 16.4 16.0 20.8 19.7 19.3 2(b) 3(a) 123,959(J) '. 144,832(N) 3(b) (a) = landfall: (b' = landfall: . = percent mobile same as l(b) 1.0 .0 20.7 19. 1-: 24.1 19.0 . 24.0 17.2 16.3 20.6 19.6 19.6 22.8 22.7 19.2 22.3 22.2 88.8 90.1 same as l(a) same as l(b) 20.5 19.4 ing ing and crossing storms south of Lee County and paralleling storms and crossing storms north of Lee County ancl paralleling st.orms of total evacuating vehicles for that category storm plus home/recreational vehicles in County. - m/I m m m m / m - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 27 TOTAL EVACUATION TIME. 1991 -TOTAL EVACUIATION TIME SiLOWi INTER-- QIJICK MEDITA'PE CLEARANCE SLOW INTER- MEDIATE TIME___ QUICK WEATHER(2) DESTINATION(1) CATEGORY 23. 9(J) 25.4(N) 12.7(J) 11.8(J) 27.9(.J) 24.8(J) 14.4(N) 13.3(N) 30.0(N) 26.5(N) 10.5 1.5. 8(J) 17. o(N) I 28.4(J) 25.3(J) 24.4(J) 30.5(N) 27.0(N) 25.9(N) 15.8(J) 12.7(J) 11.8(J) 17.9(N) 14.4(N) 13.3(N) 11. 5 1.1 2 26.0(J) 25.1(J) 27.7(N) 26.6(N) 12-7() 1l1..8(J) 29.1.(J) 14.4(N) 13.3(N) 31.2(N) 1587(J) 17. 9(N) 12.5 .8 (1) From Tablef 1.3 or 14, whichever is greater (2) From Table-12 ,:r APPENDIX A LANDFALLING PRE-EYE LANDFALI. HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 1 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) 5.5 5.5 6 6 5.5 5 4.5 5 4.5 4.5 4 7 6 6 5.5 6 TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS * GRID STORM E POINTS Fort Myers Beach bt. Myers Beach Bridge ;anibel I Punta Rassa qhell Point I ape Coral Parkway ilarney Point lona 'iver fTew Bridge East Fort Myers lind Pass 'ine Island Sound iPine Island Center 'latlacha ,oca Grande L,ANDFA,LING HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL DURATION IN HOURS 14 13.5. 17 15.5 12 11 9 11.5 7.5 12.5 13.5 12 11.5 STORM TRACK 10 3 10.5 8 6.5 1 0 0 2.5 -1.5 9 4.5 2 7 (75 (35 (75 (75 (70 (30 (30 (25 (65 (25 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) (35 (40 (35 (45 (40 (30 (24 (30 (35 (40 (35 (60 (45 (55 (40 (60 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 8 7.5 8.5 7.5 8 8 8.5 8.5 8.5 7.5 8 7 8.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 (70 NS) (70 NS) (45 NS) (70 NS) PRE-EYE LANDFALL, HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 2 HOIURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATION IN HOUIMS GRID STORM POINTS HOIrS BEFORE EYE IANDFALL- FWOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS STORM TRACK __ F 'ort Myers Beach Ft. Myers Beach Bridge anibel I 'unta Rassa Sell' Point ape Cora] Parkway arney Point Iona River Tew Bridge Q,ast Fort Myers Blind Pass 'ine Island Sound 'ine Island Center Mat lacha qoca Gr.ande I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ :'. 11 4.5 11.5 9 7 2 1 1.5 3.5 - .5 10 5.5 1.5 3 (75 NS) (50 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (65 NS) (40 NS) (35 NS) (40 NS) (70 NS) (25 NS) 15 14.5 15 18 16 12 1.2 11.5 1.2.5 10.4 13.5 14.5 8.5 13 11.5 7 7 7.5 7 7 6.5 6 6.5 5.5 5.5 5 8 7 7 6.5 7 '^, " : bt' (40 NS) 10 (60 NS) 8 (45 NS) 10 (40 NS) .0 (40 NS) 10.5 (40 NS) 10 (40 NS) 10 (45 NS) 9.5 (40 NS) 9.5 (40 NS) 10 (30 NS) 1.0 (65 NS) 9 (45 NS) 10.5 (45 NS) 10.5 (45 NS) 10 (60 , . NS 0.,5 ., (75 (75 (40 (50 (75 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) APPENDIX A LANDFALLING I TOTAL DURATT STORM IN TRACK HOURS PRE-EYE LANDFALL IIAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 3 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS (75 (55 (75 (75 (75 (60 (45 (50 (70 (35 (25 (75 (75 (40 (60 (70 15.5 16 ,;. 16.5 19 20 13 12.5 13 13.5 13 4.5 14 15 13 13.5 12 (45 (60 (45 (45 (60 (60 (40 (60 (40 (45 (35 (60 (55 (65 (45 (75 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 13 12 13.5 13.5 12.5 12.5 13 12.5 13 13 13 13.5 14.5 12.5 13.5 13 Fort Myers Beach Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Sanibel Punta Rassa Shell Point Cape Coral Parkway llarney Point Iona River New Bridge East Fort Myers Blind Pass Pine Island Sound Pine Island Center Matlacha Boca Grande LANDFALLING 11.5 6 12.5 10 8 4 2.5 3 4.5 1 -1 1].1 .5 6 3 4.5 8.5 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS ) .9- 9 9.5 9 9 8.5 8 8.5 7.5 7.5 7 10 9 9 8.5 9 PRE-EYE LANDFALL TIAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 4 TOTALl DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORFM POINTS Fort Myers Beach Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Samibe] Punta Rassa Shell Point Cape Coral]. Parkway Harney Point Iona River New Bridge East Fort Myers Blind Pass Pine Islmad Sound Pine Island Center Matlacha Boca Grande HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOIRS NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 12 7 13 10.5 9 5 4 4 5 3 0 11 6.5 4 5.5 9 (75 (75 (75 (75 (75 (75 (60 (55 (70 (45 (30 (75 (75 (45 (65 (75 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 16 16 17 19.5 18 14 13 14 14 12 7 14.5 15.5 14 14.5 12 10.5 10.5 11 10.5 1.0 10 9.5 10 9 9 9 11.5 10.5 : 10.5 10 10 (45 (60 (50 (45 (40 (55 (45 (60 (40 (40 (50 (60 (55 (60 (50 (55 15 14 -15 15 15 14.5 15 14 14.5 14.5 14 15 15 14.5 15 1.5.5 I I I I I ..-' ''. . � ,:' ; .'%, ' ' . . :, , '. I 2 APPENDIX A LANDFALLING PRE--EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 5 TOTAL DURATION IN HOURS 13.5 13 13.5 12.5 13.5 13.5 12.5 13 13 13.5 13 13 12.5 13.5 13.5 14 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) 9.5. 9.5 10 10 9.5 9 9 9 8.5 8.5 8 10.5 10 9.5 9 9.5 GRID HIOURS BEFORE I STORM EYE LANDFALL- POINTS FLOODING (1) | Fort Myers Beach 12 Ft. Myers Beach Bridge 6.5 3anibel 12.5 unta Rassa 10 I Shell Point 8.5 ,ape Coral Parkway 4 farney Point 3 Iona 4.5 River 5 qew Bridge 1.5 E bast Fort Myers -- .5 Blind Pass 10.5 'ine Island Sound 6 P ine Islald Center 4 Matlacha 5 3oca Grande 8.5 PARALLEL TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS STORM TRACK (40 NS) (45 NS) (45 .NS) (60 NS) (45 NS) (45 NS) (60 NS) (45 NS) (45 NS) (45 NS) (45 NS) (60 NS) (60 NS) (55 NS) (45 NS) (60 NS) (75 NS) (65 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (70 NS) (50 NS) (50 NS) (55 NS) (75 NS) (45 NS) (35 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (60 NS) (65 NS) (75 NS) 16, . 15-5 ':, 16 19 17.5 14 13 13.5 14 10.5 4.5 13.5 15 13 14 11.5 PRE-EYE LANDFALL thAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 1 TOTAL DURATION STOII IN T%ACIL HOURS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) ITOImS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODINC(I) TOTAL DURATION IN HOURS: GRID STORM POINTS STORF TRACK PFort Myers Beach Ft. Myers Beach Bridge anibel funta Rassa *Shell Point 'ape Coral Parkway " {arney Point mIona qiver ,ew Bridge I ist Fort Myers Blind Pass ine Island Sound 'ine Island Center o Matlacha oca Grande 13 12 13.5 13 12 9 2 0 2.5 I 0 -3 (60 (15 (60 (15 (15 wS) WS) WS ) ws ) IwS ) WS) 5 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5 5 4.5 4.5 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.5 ( o S) (15 WS) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) ( a S) (15 ES) (15 ES) (.O S) (15 ES) (15 ES) (15 ES) ( 0 S) ( ( s) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) (15 WS). 8.5 9 8.5 8.5 8.5 9 9 8.5 9 8.5 8.5 8.5 8 8 8 8.5 ( 0 S) 0 -1.5 -2 -2.- 5 (60 WS) (15 ES) (15 WS) (1.5 ES.) 11.5 8 10 .. 3 .I.. i APPENDIX A PARALLEL PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 2 lOUIRS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATIC STORM IN TRACK HOURS GRID STY)RM POINTS IIOIU'S BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING ( 1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS (60 WS) (15 WS) (60 WS) (15 WS) (15 IwS) ( 0 s) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) 14 12.5 14.5 16 12. 5 10.5 1.0 10 9.5 12.5 11.5 10.5 11 10 7 .. 6.5 6.5 6.5 6 6 6 6.5 6 6 6 6 5.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 ( 0 (0 (15 (0 (0 ( 0 ( 0 (15 (15 (1. 5 (15 (15 (15 (15 (15 (15 S) S) WS) S) S) S) S) ES) ES) ES) ES) WS) WS) wS) ES) WS) 11 11.5 11 11.5 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10.5 Fort Myers Beach Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Sanibel Punta Rassa Shell Point Cape Coral Parkway HIarney Point Iona River New Bridge East Fort Myers Blind Pass Pine Island Sound Pine Island Center Matlacha Boca Grande PALRALLEL 2 .5 2.5 4 .5 -1.5 -2 -2 -2.5 .5 -- 1.5 -1.5 -1 -2 (60 (15 (15 (15 (60 WS) ES) WS) WS) WS) I I PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 3 TOTAI. I DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURSI HOIRS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) 8.5 8 8 8 GRID I STORMI I POINTS I Fort Myers Beach Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Sanibel Punta Rassa Shell Poi-nt Cape Coral Parkway larney Point Tona River New Bridge Elist Fort Myers Blind Pass Pine Island Sould Pine Island Center Matlacha Bnca Grande ITOURS BEFORE EYE LIANDFALL - FLOOD ING(i) TOTAL DUTRATION IN HOURS STORM TRACK S) S) WS) S) S) S) S) ES) ES) ES) ES) WS) WS) S) S) S) , !.�; ., _.� 14 13.5 13.5 14 14 13.5 14 14 14 14 14 14.5 14 14 14 13.5 (60 (15 (60 (15 (415 (30 (15 (0 (0 (0 (0 (60 (15 (15 (15 (60 WS) WS) WS) ES) WS) WS) WS) S) S) S) S) WS) ws) WS) WS) WS) 14 13 14.5 3.5 13 12.5 11 10.5 ' 11 10 9.5 13 10.5 11 11 9.5 ( 0 (0 (15 ( 2 1 2.5 5 1.5 .5 -1 -1.5 -1 -- 2.5 1 - ]1.5 -1 -1 -2.5 I I I I 1 I ( 0 (0 ( (15 (15 (15 (15 (15 (15 (0 ( (0 8 7.5 7.5 8 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7 7 7 5.5 1 I I 4 APPENDIX A PARALLEL PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 4 HOIJRS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8 8 8 7.5 8 7.5 7.5 7.5 8 7.5 7.5 7 6 TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOTRS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS I STOI~G R I D I ~ STORM POINTS I Fort Myers Beach Ft. Myers Beach Bridge kanibel E.nta Rassa Shell Point "ape Coral Parkway Iona .iver 'ew Bridge iEast Fort Myers Blind Pass ine Island Sound ine Island Center IMatlacha oca Grande WS) WS) WS) wS) WS) WS) WS) WS) WS) wS) WS) WS) WS) WS) WS ) 14:5 13 ].4.5 14 1.2.5 10.5 9.5 10.5 9.5 7.5 13.5 10.5 11 11 10 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (60 (30 (60 (60 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (45 WS) wS) wS) WS) WS) WS) WS) wS) WS ) wS ) WS) WS) WS ) WS) WS ) WS) 15.5 16 16 16 16 16 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15 16.5 16.5 16.5 16 16.5 2.5 1 2.5 2 .5 -1.5 -2.5 -1.5 -2.5 -5.5 1.5 -1.5 -1 -1 -2 (60 (30 (30 (30 (60 PARALLEL - 60 WS ONLY PRE-EYE LANDFALL EAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 5 TOTAL DURATION - IN HOURS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS STORM TRACK .. irt Myers Beach 1et. Myers Beach Bridge qanibel unta Rassa *hell Point *Cape Coral Parkway arney Point ona iver "ew Bridge ast Fort Myers Elind Pass Pine Island Sound ine Island Center .atl acha toca Grande 2 - .5 2.5 2 .5 -5.5 -7.5 -6.5 -4 14 11.5 14.5 14 12.5 6.5 4.5 4 8 6.5 6.5 6.5 6 6 5.5 5 5.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 6 5.5 5.5 5 4 11.5 11.5 12 11.5 11.5 10.5 10 10.5 9 9.5 8.5 13 12.5 12 11.5 12.5 1 -3 -7 -3 -2.5 13 9 3 9 9.5 . . ... .. - : " - "'i"~;'I ' :]> ! ' ' '. .. ,*; '` ;- .': '." . . . ". I - : ;. ...'. '" "t "' , .. . . - ,4,.. .1 t. . 5 I I APPENDIX A CROSSING I TOTALI ( Tilt PRE--EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY I HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING( 1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS GRID STOtM POINTS STORM TRACK Fort Myers Beach Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Sanibel Punta Rassa Shell Point Cape Coral Parkway Harney Point Iona River New Bridge East Fort Myers Blind Pass Pine Island Sound Pine Island Center Matlacha Boca Grande 3.5 -1 2 5.5 4 (45 (0 (30 (30 (30 SS) S) SS) SS) SS) 8.5 7 16'. 5 15 11 6 11.5 4.5 5.5 .7" 7 6 6.5 7 7.5 7.5 7.5 8 7.5 8 5 5.5 (15 (15 (15 (15 (30 (30 (30 (30 (45 (30 (30 (15 (15 ss) SS) SS) ss) SS) ss) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) 10 10 9.5 10 9 10 10 10 9 10 10.5 9.5 1.0 (45 SS) 1 1.5 4.5 3.5 1 (30 SS) (30 SS) (45 SS) (45 SS) 6 5 (30 SS) 9.5 (30 SS) 10 CROSSING PRE-EYE LANDFALL aAZARD TIMES -- CATEGORY 2 TOTAL I DURATIOF STORM IN TRACK HOURS I (30 SS) 11" (30 SS) 11.5 (1-M -ZCQ \ In R IIOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS Fort Myers Beach Ft. Myers Beach Bridge Sanibel Punta Rassa Shell Point Cape Coral Parkway Harney Point Iona River New Bridge East Fort Myers Blind Pass Pine Island Sound Pine Island Center Mat lachaI Boca Grande HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(]) TOTAL STOR4 DURATION TRACK IN HOURS 4 0 2.5 7 5 -3 �-5.5 (45 (1] 5 (45 (40 (45 (0 (15 ss) SS) SS) SS) ss) S) SS) 9.5 11 7.5 18 15 7.5 2.5 11.5 6.5 16.5 8.5 15 7.5. 8.5 8.5 7.5 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9.5 6.5 7 7 7.5 6 ( (30 (15 (45 (45 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (15 (30 (45 SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) 11.5 12 11.5 11.5 12.5 1.2.5 1.2.5 12.5 10.5 11.5 12 1.1.5 11 U I I I 1.5 (45 SS) (45 (45 ( 0 (30 (45 SS) SS) S) SS) SS ) 2 6.5 -3.5 4 1.5 .,.-;.: ; .; ;.' ': '. . . ,- .. ' ': ' ':. I 6 APPENDIX A CROSSING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 3 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HfOURS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFAI.L- FLOODING( 1) TOTAL .STOrMM DURATION TRACK IN IIOURS GRID STORM POINTS Fort Myers Beach Ft. Myers Beach Bridge 3anibel 3unta Rassa IShell Point Cape Coral Parkway lona River New Bridge . ,ast Fort Myers Blind Pass Pine Island Sound ?ine Island Center 4latlacha Boca Grande 4 .5 2.5 5.5 4.5 4 -1 -1' 1.5 -2.5 2.5 5.5 (45 (15 (45 (15 (30 (30 (30 (15 (45 (15 SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) SS) ss) SS) SS) SS) 14 11-5 8 16.5 15.5 15 9.5 10 11.5 8.5 7.5 7. 5 6.5 6.5 7 7.5 7.5 7.5 8 8 8 5.5 6 6.5 6.5 5.5 (30 (30 (15 (15 (30 (30 (30 (15 (45 (45 (30 (15 (15 (45 (30 (45 SS) SS ) SS) .ss ) ss) SS) SS ) sS ) ss) SS) ss) ss ) sS ) sS ) SS) ss ) 12 12 12 12 12 12.5 12.5 13 12 12 12.5 12 12.5 11 12.5 11.5 (45 SS) (45 SS) 7 15.5 4 1.5 (45 SS) (45 SS) 15 11.5 (1) Greatest time before landfall - not necessarily for , cause early flooding even through they may not produce track produces same time, the one with the worse surge worst case storm; some highest surge - if more then chosen. tracks than 1 (2) Greatest time before landfall - same is true for winds as above for flooding. ;.' , ; g ' . ' ' .' . . ' . ., ' .. . . 7 CHARLOTTE COUNTY - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page # Hurricane Vulnerability .............................. II-C-1 Recent Storm History ................................ II-C-4 Affected Population ................................ II-C-8 Motor Vehicles .......................................II-C-12 Shelters .............................................II-C-13 Routes ............................................... II-C-17 Clearance Times ......................................II-C-21 1991 Forecasts ......................................... II-C-28 APPENDIX - Hazard Times ............................1... LIST OF MAPS Map Page # 1. SLOSH Model Storm History Points .................. II-C-2 2. Maximum Areas Subject to Flooding ................. II-C-3 3. Evacuation Zones ..................................II-C-9 4. Red Cross Managed Public Shelter Locations ........ II-C-15 5. Evacuation Routes .................................11-C-18 6. Routes Subject to Rainfall Flooding ........-.......-C-22 LIST OF TABLES Table Page # 1. Predicted Coastal Storm Surges .................... II-C-4 2. Hurricane Simulated by Surge Mode] ................. II-C-5 3. Selected Storm Tracks ............................. II-C-7 4. 1987 Housing Units ................................ II-C-10 5. Population Estimates .............................. II-C-11 6. Vehicle Estimates ............................ ....II-C-13 7. Shelters .......................................... II--C-14 8. Public Shelter Capacity ...........................II-C-14 9. Population Displacement Ratio ..........II-C-l - 10. Shelter Satisfaction ...............................I-C-17 11. Evacuation Route Capacity Calculation ............. II-C-19 12. Pre-Landfall Flood Conditions ..................... II-C-21 13. Shelter Designations and Options .................. II-C-23 14. Time to Clear ..................................... JI-C-24 15. Ultimate Constricting Route ....................... II-C-25 16. County Exiting Routes ............................ II-C-26 17. Total Evacuation Time ............................... II-C-27 18. }lousing UInits, 1991 ...............................1I-C-29 19. Population Estimates, 1991 ........................ 11-C-30 20. Motor Vehicle Estimates, 1991 ..................... -C-31 21. Public Shelter Capacities, 1991 ...................11-C-32 22. Revised Capacities ................................ TT-C-33 23. Shelter Satisfactions, 1991 .......................11-C-33 24. Revised Time to Clear, 1991 .-......................IC-34 25. Ultimate Constricting Route, 1991 ................. II-C-35 26. Exiting Routes, 1991 ..............................II-C-37 27. Total Time, 1991 .. .......................-.::lI- C' ;2 :; CHARLOTTE COUNTY PEACETIME EMERGENCY PLAN (Hurricanes) I [9J-5.012(2)(e)(i)] HIURRICANE VULNERABILITY The hurricane vulnerability of Charlotte County has been analyzed * using a numerical storm surge prediction model known as SLOSH, I short for Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes. This model is described in detail in the Regioniial Hurricane Evacuation Plans 1981-82, prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council; as well as A Storm Surge Atlas for Southwest Florida, prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, UJndated, @ 1983). These reports analyzed some 187 separate storms for their potential impact on Southwest Florida, including Charlotte County. Both reports provide an assessment of methodologies and provide assumptions that can act towards increasing or decreasing forecast flood and wind i conditions. However, in summary, the following assumptions can bc made. | (1) Landfalling storms provide the worst flooding potential (2) Flooding will be worse south of the eye of the hurricane 3 (3) Wind conditions making roads unsafe for travel will arrive well before the eye of the hurricane, and usually before flood waters inundate evacuation routes * j (4) Storm landfall prediction is not an exact science. Any approaching storm has the capacity to strengthen or veer, decreasing or increasing the flooding and surge potential of If ~the storm. The SLOSH model used( fourteen points in Charlotte County for time i history analysis. These points are depicted on Map 1. The greatest height of stormwaters for each category storm, for each point, are summarized in Table 1. * The SLOSHIf model also provides maps of the floodingp that may be expected in Charlotte County. The 187 different simulatiorns have been summarized by flood category, and a zone for each I' category has been created depicting the maximum extent of flooding resultinrg from all of the storms of that category. The five zones thus created are depicted on Map 2. ; I~~~~~~~II-C-1 ,,. II H H I tO A STORM HISTORY POINTS 1 CAPE HAZE 2 CHARLOTTE CO. LINE 3, PLACIDA 4 ALLIGATOR CREEK JR 5 FOOT CONTOUR LINES 10 WEST HARBOR VIEW 11 ALLIGATOR BAy 12 SR 771 BRIDGE 13 AINGER CREEK 14 ENGLEWOOD BEACH 5 6 7 8 9 ACLINE PUNTA GORDA ISLES US 41, BRIDGE EAST PUNTA GORDA EAST GRASSY POINT O I " 4 5 MILES I I .. I I 1' MAP 1 CHARLOTTE COUNTY SLOSH MODEL STORM HISTORY POINTS _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - _ mm mm 'l / 'l M I I /� m I m m ima m / ~ ~ 0 I '.2 35 4 5 MILES SWFRP" DEC 87-RNC l 1:' MAP 2 CHARLOTTE COUNTY MAXIMUM AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOODING BY STORM CATEGORY ! TABLE 1 PREDICTED COASTAL STORM SURGES SIMULATED BY SLOSH MODEL, LANDFALLING STORMS (If a point is over water, surge is reported in feet of flooding above msl; if a point is on land, surge is reported in feet above land at that point)* ELEVATION STORM CATEGORY GRID POINT OF POINT 1 2 3 4 5 Cape Haze 1 5 8 13 16.5 15 1 Charlotte Co. Line 1 5 9 13 17 17 Placida 1 6 8. 10 14 13 - Alligator Creek 1 6 10 15 20 20.5 Acline 13 - - 4 9 10 Punta Gorda Isles 4 4 7 13 18 19 41 Bridge 1 7 11 17 22 24 East Punta Gorda 1 7 11 17 22 24 East Grassy Point 1 7 10 17 21.5 23 West Harbor View 7 - 6 12 16.5 ].9 Alligator Bay 4 4 8 14 18.5 20 771 Bridge 1 5 9 15 20 20 Ainger Creek 1 6 8 12 15 14 Englewood Beach 1 5 7 11 14 13 *See Figures 8-11 for grid point locations. Although storms cannot be accurately forecast in regard to their behavior, the 187 simulations did provide insights into the differences in pre-landfall flooding for landfalling, paralleling, and crossing storms. These differences are summarized in Table 2 for hurricane eye location and points of worst impact. Table 3 summarizes the nature of flood and wind variation based on whether the storm is landfalling, crossing, or paralleling. Appendix A summarizes the pre-eye landfall hazard-- times that the County may experience. Recent Storm History _ The most recent hurricane impacts in Charlotte County were during Hurricane Floyd. This storm, on October 16, 1987, caused "recommended evacuation" advisories for the Charlotte County Barrier Islands. Sixteen people were admitted to county shelters, and an unknown number sought shelter in hotels and motels in the County. Floyd turned away before directly impacting Charlotte County. The County sustained minor beach erosion on the barrier islands from Hurricane Elena and Tropical Storm Juan, in 1985. Some minor road flooding also occurred during Juan. The major thrust of both of these storms was further north, but voluntary evacuations were recommended from barrier islands. ;-~~ : : ... - .: .. , - ..'.-:. :...................'.'--............,.::, :.';''' , -'.4't II-C-4 ! TABLE 2 HURRICANES SIMULATED BY NUMERICAL STORM SURGE PREDICTION MODEL r. c 0 A : C T : M A E O T T G : LANDFALL/EXITING POINT D Y I O OR E P O R : CLOSEST APPROACI. L E N Y . AREA RECEIVING MAXIMUM SURGE/WINDS Sl, L 35NS SL L. 35NS SL rL 35NS SL L 35NS SL IL 35NS 1 'Cape Haze 2 :Cape Haze 3 :Cape Haze 4 :Cape Haze 5 :Cape Haze East East East East East Punta Gorda Punta Gorda Punta Gorda Punta Gorda Punta Gorda 1 :Englewood 2 :Englewood 3 :Englewood 4 :Englewood 5 :Englewood 1 :Manasota Beach 2 :Manasota Beach 3 :Manasota Reach 4 :Manasota Beach 5 :Manasota Beach 1 :South Venice 2 :South Venice 3 :South Venice 4 :South Venice 5 :South Venice ST. L 40NS St. L 40NS SL L 4ONS SL L 40NS SL TL 40NS East East East East East Punta Gorda Punta Gorda Punta Gorda Punta Gorda Punta Gorda SL L 45NS SL L 45NS SL L 45NS SL L 45NS SL iL 45NS Peace River Bridge Peace River Bridge Peace River Bridge Peace River Bridge Peace River Bridge Peace River Bridge Peace River Bridge Peace River Bridge Peace RiveL IRidge- Peace River Bridge East Punta Gorda East Punta Gorda East Punta Gorda East Punta Gorda East Punta Gorda East Punta Gorda East Punta Gorda S.L L. 50NS SL L 50NS SL L 50NS STL L 50NS ST, L 50NS SL SL ST, SL SL S L L 55NS I :Venice L 55NS 2 :Venice L 55NS 3 :Venice L 55NS 4 :Venice rL 55NS 5 :Venice T. O0NS l :Nokomis Beach L 60NS 2 :Nokomis Beach KEY: SL - SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hlurricanes) Model L - Landfalling Hurricane C - Crossing Hurricane (Exiting Hurricane) P -- Paralleling HIurricane SS - South of Sanibel Island NS -4 North of Sanilbel Islald' - II-C-5 I TABLE 2 (Continued) HURRICANES SIMULATED BY NUMERICAL STORM SURGE PREDICTION MODEL L C O A C T I I I M A E O T T G : LANDFALL/EXITING POINT D Y I O OR AREA RECEIVING E P O R CLOSEST APPROACH MAXIMUM SURGE/WINDS L E N Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------_- - - --_------_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _- _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _- _ _- _ , _- _ - - _- East Punta Gorda East Punta. Gorda East Punta Gorda SL SL SL L 60NS L 60NS L 60NS 3 ,Nokomis Beach 4 :Nokomis Beach. 5 'Nokomis Beach, 1 ':Casey Key 2 :Casey Key 2 :Casey Key 3 'Casey Key 4 :Casey Key 5 :Casey Key SL L 65NS SL L 65NS SL L 65NS SL L 65NS SL L 65NS 771 771 771 771 771 Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge SL L 70NS SL L 70NS SL L 70NS SL; L 70NS SL L 70NS 1 :Siesta Key 2 :Siesta Key 3 :Siesta Key 4 :Siesta Key 5 :Siesta Key 771 771 771 771 771 Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge I I SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL L 75NS L 75NS L 75NS L 75NS L 75NS L 80NS L 80NS L 80NS L 80NS L 80NS 1 :Longboat 2 :Longboat 3 :Longboat 4 :Longboat 5 :Longboat; 1 ILongboat 2 :Longboat 3 :Longboat 4 :Longboat 5 :Longboat 1 :LaBelle 2 :LaBelle 3 :LaBelle Key Key Key Key Key Venice Beach Venice Beach Venice Beach Venice Beach Venice Beach I I Key Key Key Key Key Bay Island Bay Island Bay Island Bay Island Bay Island I SL C 45SS SL C 45SS SL C 45SS 771 Bridge 771 Bridge 771 Bridge I I SL; ST. SL C 30SS C 30SS C 30SS 1 :Alva 2 :Alva 3 :Alva 771 Bridge 771 Bridge 771 Bridge I KEY: SL L C P SS RS - SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from - Landfalling Hurricane - Crossing Hurricane (Exiting Hlurricane) -- Parallr;ling Ilurricane - South of Sanibel Island Right: of Santibel Island: I II-C-6 I TABLE 3 SELECTED STORM TRACTS BY CATEGORY AND TYPE STORM TRACK 35NS-L-1 55NS-L-1- 75NS-L-1 STORM CHARACTERISTICS S(1) S (1,) S(1) W(l) W(l) W(l.) W (2) W (2) W.(1) W(1) W(l) W(3) W(2) W(1) W(l) W(2) W (3) W(2) W(l) W(1) W(2) 5SS-L-2 35NS-L-2 55NS-L-2 75NS-L-2 5(1) S (3) S(3), S(2) W(1)* S(2) S(4) S(4) 5(3) 95NS-L-3 15 NS-L-3 35NS-L-3 55NS-L--3 75NS-L-3 15ES-P-2 0 S-P-2 3OWS-P-2 GOWS -P-2 W(M1 S(I) 5(1) S(1) 15ES-P-3 0 S-P-3 3oWs-P-3 50WS-P-3 S(1) S(2) S(2) S(2) 45NS-C-2 15NS-C-2 5(1) w(1) 45NS-C-3 15NS-C-3 S(3) W(2) ,, C- (I) - (2) - (3) - NS ES W S S W S L -- South of Sanibel - North of Sanibel -- East of Sanibel - West of Sanibel - Storm Surge - Wirnd (over 40 mph) - SLOSHf Model Landfalling Para). iI ed Crossing Category I Category 2 Category 3 Saffir-Simpson Scale Category (1) - 4-5 foot Surge Category (2) - 6-8 foot Surge Category (3) - 9-12 foot Surge Category (4) - 13-18 foot Surge 74-95 mph wind 96-110 mph wind 111-130 mph wind 131-155 mph wind -. -. . ., , -: .. .. � :.11 ." -. - .,, . . . ." - . P-% ' " .. , II-C-7 I The last hurricane to directly impact Charlotte County was Rurricane Donna in 1960. This storm passed through Charlotte County on its path across the penninsula. Donna was a Category 3 storm with 177 mph winds. Affected Population Each zone depicted on Map 2 encompasses large segments of the County population. Each one has a certain degree of vulnerabil:ity to the threat of hurricane induced flooding. Category 1 zones have the most repeated threat potential, whereas it is highly unlikely (but the potential exists) that category 5 areas will need to evacuate during the comprehensive plan hor:izon. . Each zone, as drafted, mimics the coastline. Geographically, however, these zones are too cumbersome to assess the timing and shelter needs of the population. Consequently, in associat:ion with the Charlotte County Disaster Preparedness Department, new subzones were created consistent with local knowledge used by the Department. These are depicted in Map 3. These sub-zones are valid solely for evacuation planning purposes and should not be considered as identifying actual neighborhoods or communities. The first element in preparing an estimate of County population is to estimate dwelling units, and dwelling unit types. A count of housing units (principally single-family homes and mobile homes) was undertaken using aerial photographs. This information was supplemented with information on mobile home parks (provided by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services), rental units (provided by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants (FDCA), and Condominium information (from County tax rolls). A compilation of this information suggests that there are 48,932 dwelling units in the county. This estimate includes conventional housing, mobile homes, and transitional housing such as inhabited travel. trailers, and hotel/motel units. The. greatest concentration of these, 58.0%-O are located in the- Category 1 zone. Table 4 provides the estimate of dwelling units in the County by Flood Zone and by community name. Using the housing unit estimate, a population estimate is then made. Two additional assumptions, however, are needed: persons per household, and vacancy rate. The number of persons per household was estimated to be a standard 2.2 persons per household, regardless of unit. Whereas this assumption has inaccuracies ; the end result probably does -ilot di ffer si;gnificantly from a more detailed analysis. More detailed analysis, however, is needed to determine vacancy rates for unit type, since different unit types-have different vulnerability to flood or wind hazards. Ising a survey estimate developed from a telephone survey in October-November, 1987, two estimates of seasonal vacancy were developed for the region. These are as follows: I I I I I I I I I I I I .-]' ':. :..' .....:.':( i: :-:' ':"' ..... -'c.:'; .' :. ' ""::: II-C-8 - - m - - - - 11 - H H I I 0 3 - O 1 2 3 4 MILES ir~-- � _ - MAP 3 CHARLOTTE COUNTY EVACUATION ZONES TABLE 4 CHARLOTTE COUNTY - HOUSING UNITS Mobile Recreational HIome Vehicle Multi-Family Apartment Condo IIotel - Duplex Motel Residential Single-Family Storm Category Total Zone Barrier Tslands Myakka River Barrier Islands Cape HIaze Port Charlotte Peace River Pun la Gorlda South County 321 20 321 0 379 172 87 0 789 0 789 0 938 73 810 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 151 0 151 0 158 299 159 0 6,523 837 8,523 790 8,867 4,054 6,769 554 4,528 758 4,528 240 7,392 2,284 3,767 451. 637 59 637 550 0 1].,2 01 1,559 103 95 0 95 0 0 21 387 0 Tropical Storm I 1. 1 1 .1 TOTALS ZONE 1 19,420 4,109 503 979 2,610 6 767 28,394 2 Cape IIaze 1,713 1,427 0 0 126 2 83 3,351 2 Port Charlotte 3,062 0 0 0 1,036 84 0 4,182 2 Shell Creek 172 15 0 3 0 0 0 190 2 Punta Gorda 278 72 a0 0 0 8 358 2 South County 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 TOTALS ZONE 2 5,237 1,514 0 3 1,162 86 91 8,093 3 Cape Ilaze 621 0 0 0 0 . 26 0 647 3 Port Charlotte 6,454 1,508 0 0 190 6 100 8,258 3-. Shell Creek 141 305 68 0 0 0 0 514 3 Punta Gorda 298 173 0 0 2- 0 200 673 TOTALS ZONE 3 7,514 1,986 68 0 192 32 300 10,092 4i Port Charlotte 119 0 0 0 600 0 0 719 4. . Shell Creek 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 4 Acline 193 690 117 0 0 0 21 1,021 4: Web 543 0 0 0 0 0 0 543 TOTAI.S ZONE 4' 911 690 117 0 600 0 21 2,339 H H ~5';. North County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Webb 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 TOTA J, ZONE 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 TOTALS' ALL ZONES 33,096 8,299 688 982 4 564 1I 1W1 i8,91 - 2- - ~8, 9j1 Unit Type Seasonal Occupancy Rates IU~~~~~~ ~~~July November Single-Family Unit 95% 96% Duplex (& Multiplexes) 95 96 I Apartment 70 78 Condominium (Conventional) 51 64 Mobile Hlome 43 75 | ~ Travel Trailer/R.V. 18 41 Motel/Hotel 54 63 In 1987, Charlotte County is estimated to have a July population of 83,696, and a November population of;94,.l53. This information is summarized by subzone in Table.5.. Numerically, the greatest seasonality occurs in Hurricane Category Zone 1, which has 53,998 persons in July and 61,593 in November, an increase of 14.1%. TABLE 5 CHARLOTTE COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION ZONES Storm Population Estimate Category Zone July November 1 Myakka River 1,671 1,733 Barrier Islands 11,667 12,575 *I ~ Cape Haze 1,022 1,414 Port Charlotte 17,273 17,802 Peace River 6,628 7,645 I|~ ~ Punta Gorda 10,733 12,387 South County 1,040 1,122 Mobile Homes, not otherwise 3,964 6,914 included in the above flood prone areas (Category 2-5 Areas) TOTALS AREA 1 53,998 61,593 2 Cape Haze 5,174 6,269 - Port Charlotte 7,738 8,107 I8~ : Shell Creek 378 393 Punta Gorda 659 717 South County 25 25 Mobile Homes, not otherwise 2,531 4,415 included in the above flood prone areas (Category 3-5 Areas) ----- NEW EVACUEES 12,542 13,01.3 TOTALS 1 - 2 66,539 74,606 _:_-C-1 1 TABLE 5 (Continued) CHARLOTTE COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION ZONES Storm Population Estimate Category Zone July November 3 Cape Raze 1,471 1,368 Port Charlotte 13,715 16,538 Shel].] Creek 559 862 Punta Gorda 981 1,195 Mobile Homes, not otherwise 653 . 1,1.39 included in the above flood ; prone areas (Category 4-5 Areas) ' NEW EVACUEES 14; 84.8' 16,686 TOTALS 1 - 3 81,387 91,292 4 Port Charlotte 1,096 1,096 Shell Creek 147 118 Acline 513 1,608 Webb 1,176 1,147 Mobile llomes, not otherwise 0 0 included in the above flood prone areas (Category 5 Area) NEW EVACUEES 2,280 2,831 TOTALS 1 -- 4 83,667 94,123 5 North County 0 0 Webb 29 30 NEW EVACUEES 29 30 TOTALS i - 5 83,696 94,153 Motor Vehicles Nearly all of the population affected by an oncoming hurricane- will evacuate by private vehicle. The question arises as to how many vehicles will be used in the evacuation. Issues relevant to this include the number of vehicles owned, whether owners would be willing to leave any vehicles behind (since next to the home, vehicles are the most expensive possession), whether all drivers feel con fi dent to operate a vehicle in storm conditions-, and whether evacuating families wish to be separated in different motor ve hicles. Based on surveys, respondents indicated approximately 75% of available vehicles would be used -in an evacuation. (Ifurricane Evacuation Plan, 1981--82, SWFRPC). This averaged out to 1.] vehicles per occupied unit. Using this ratio of cars and the occupancy ratio used previously, the potential number of county vehicles used in an evacuation in July would be 43,007, and in November would be 47,110. Category 1 Zones would have the greatest number of vehicles, 23,199 C(,5 ,233 with .RVs and -mobile homes) in .July,a.nd e3,.7?3.. '"2..'7,:0:'.:3' .:.. II-C-12 with RVs and mobile homes) in November. Table 6 summarizes the vehicle generation by each subzone. TABLE 6 CHARLOTTE COUNTY VEHICLE ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION CATEGORY SIJBZONE JULY RECREATIONAL NOVEMBER RECREATIONAL VE IICTLE VEHICLE 1 Myakka River 840 0 866 0 1 Barrier Islands 5,888 17. 6,245 43 I Cape THaze 511 ,0 707 0 1 Port Charlotte 8,724 0 8,901 0 1 Peace River 3,350 4 3,813 9 I Punta Gorcia 5,310 70 6,019 175 ] South County 520 0 561 0 2 Cape lHaze 2,587 0 3,135 0 2 Port Charlotte 3,869 0 4,052 0 2 Shell Creek 190 0 197 0 2 Punta Corda 329 0 359 0 2 South County 13 0 13 0 3 Cape Haze 676 0 683 0 3 Port Charlotte 7,630 0 8,269 0 3 Shell Creek 292 12 401 31 3 Punta Gorda 513 0 597 0 4 Port Charlotte 461 0 548 0 4 Shell Creek 59 0 59 0 4 Acline 541 21. 788 53 , Webb 567 0 573 0 5 North County 0 0 0 0 5 Webb 15 0 1.5 0 TOTALS ALL ZONES 42,883 124 46,800 a 3T0 Shel. ters Evacuees must have a place to go. The SWFRPC undertook surveys in 1979 and 1981 to determine evacuee preferences. This data is summarized as follows: public shelters (24�), leaving the County (34%), visit friends or go to hotel or stay home or "other" (21o), "don't know" (21%). Those are preference declarations; other- stu Idies indicat:e there is a significant variation from pre-ference to act.ual behavi or. Additionally, the severity of imlpeindi.nrg storms may al. so change decisions, as increased community-wide evacuation limits or eliminates the hotel/friends/ public shelter/stay home prediction. II . . -C -13 At this time, the County has eighteen public shelters, with a capacity (at 20 square feet per person) of 12,503 persons. These shelters are summarized in Table 7, by vulnerability zone. They are depicted on Map 4. TABLE 7 CfARLOTTE COUNTY SHELTERS Capacity 20 sq.ft. Address per Person Charlotte Ave., PG 180 Beaver Lane ' 355 Cooper Street, PG 406 Toledo Blade Blvd., PC 400 Tee and Green Estates 525 Rotonda West 375 Placida Road 800 Atwater St., PC 1,000 Lakeview Blvd. 920 Breezeswept Ave. 80 Hancock Ave., NW 1,250 Aaron Street, PC 750 Toledo Blade Blvd. 1,957 Midway Blvd., NE 1,215 Carmalita Street 825 Cooper Street, PG 314 Boundary Blvd. 1,000 Englewood 150 Zone Vulner- ability ] 2 .1 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 Red Cross Managed Shelter Benjamin J. Baker Elem. Charlotte Harbor School Charlotte Sr. High Charlotte Vo-Tech Center East Elementary School L.A. Ainger School Lemon Bay High Liberty Elementary Meadow Park Elementary Neal Armstrong Elementary Peace River Elementary Port Charlotte Cultural Center Port Charlotte High Port Charlotte Jr. ligh Punta Gorda Jr. high Sallie Jones Elementary Vineland Elementary West Charlotte Com- munity Center* I I I I I I Capacity: 12,503 persons TOTAL: 18 Shelters I I *Secondary Shelter the county fas- the county can stormn in July, County's public Based upon the evacuees forecasted in Table 5, limited public shelter capacity. For example, accommodate 23.2% of the evacuees of Category 1 and 20.3% in November. Table 8 summarizes the shelter capacities for storms. TABLE 8 PUBLIC SHELTER CAPACITY I PERCENT MET I L.Y NOVEMBER JU STORM. CATEGORY EVACUEES JULY NOVEMBER SPACE 12,353 7,657 3,252 3,252 3,252 61,593 23.2 20.3 74,606 11.5 10.3 91,292 4.0 3.6 9,1,123 3.9 3.5 94,153 3.8 3.5 II-C-14 1 2 3 4 5 53,998 66,539 81,387 83,667 83,696 m m - m m m m m m - - a - - - - - N. N " ctl W pt C74 LEGEHD NOTE: FLOOD HEIGHTS AT SHORELINE o~ �., 775 b-�,% r /;y .-INI~' CHARLOrrE "'7 6,,"�"/ '1 HARBOR .I C) 0. .I ,I H H I 0 hi Cn UP TO 7 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVELCMSL) 1.11.... ,_e_ mm F pl 1\ UP TO 11 FEET ABOVE MSL UP TO 17 FEET ABOVE MSL I SWfRPC-87 RNC SHELTERS & 1. BENJAMIN J. BAKER ELEMENTARY 2. CHARLOTTE HARBOR SCHOOL 3. CHARLOTTE SENIOR HICH SCHOOL 4. CHARLOTTE VO-TECH CENTER 5. EAST ELEMENTARY SCIIOOL 6. L.A. AINBGER SCHOOL 7. LEMON BAY HIGH SCHOOL 8. LIBERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 9. MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 10. NEAL ARMSTRONa ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11. PEACE RIVER ELEMENTARY SCIIOOL 12. PORT CHARLOTTE CULTURAL CENTER 13. PORT CHARLOTTE HIGH SCHOOL 14. PORT CHARLOTTE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 15. PUNTA GORDA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 16. SALLIE JONES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 17. VINELAND ELEMENTARY 18. WEST CHARLOTTE COMMUNITY CENTER I MAP 4 CHARLOTTE COUNTY RED CROSS MANAGED PUBLIC SHELTER LOCATIONS 5 MILES W.- I Public shelter demand within the County is not the only means of meeting evacuee shelter nieeds. Regretfully, it seems to be the largest. Of these, only the hotel option can be assessed. Other sources of shelter include "friends," hotels, or one's own home (refusal to evacuate). In Charlotte County, there are an estimated 1,179 hotel/motel rooms. By far the greatest portion (65%) of the rooms are located on the shoreline or are in the Category l storm surge zone. This leaves only 412 units available in a Category 1 storm, 321 in Category 2, 21 in Category 3, and 4 storms and none in a Category 5 storm. I The 412 units, at 100% occupancy (2.2 persons per room), would satisfy only 1.7% of the demand for shelter space in July and 1.5% in November for a Category 1 storm. In Category 2 and greater storms, the availability of commercial hotel/mote] space is essentially nil. In summary, the public and commercial hotel/motel shelter space meets this much of county evacuee needs: Storm Category 1 = 24.9% July, 21.8% November Storm Category 2 = 12.6% July; 11.3% November Storm Category 3 = 4.0% July; 3.6% November Storm Category 4 = 3.9% July; 3.5% November Storm Category 5 = 3.8% July; 3.4% November Without public or private commercial space available, evacuees have only the options of (a) staying with friends who are in safer areas within the county or (b) leaving the county for areas of the state expected to be less affected by the hurricane. The County's ability to "stay with friends" is limited. The capacity of space available for evacuees, when staying with friends, decreases rapidly as the ratio of evacuees to those not affected increases. This problem is depicted in Table 9. TABLE 9 - POPULATION DISPLACEMENT RATIO STORM POPULATION CATEGORY DISPLACED NOT DISPLACED RATIO July November July November July November 1 53,998 61,593 29,698 32,560 1.8:1 1.9:1 2 66,539 74,606 17,]157 19,547 3.9:1 3.8:1 I 3 81,387 91,292 2,309 2,861 35:1 32:1. 4 83,667 94,123 29 30 >36:1 >33:1 5 83,696 94,153 0 0 >36:1 >33:1 ii -c-16 II-C-16 ; I For Category 1 storms, those wishing to stay with friends (as opposed to leaving the county or staying in public shelters or hotels/motels) will probably find that they are not able to do so. The SWFRPC 1981 Evacuation Plan estimates 13% of the evacuating population will. take this option. However, the opportunity to stay with friends rapidly decreases as storm intensity increases (forcing more people to evacuate). In a Category 1 storm in July only 7.2% and 6.8% in November will be able to stay with friends. In a Category 2 storm, the percentage of evacuees able to stay with a friend has fallen to 3.3% in July and 3.4% in November; for Category 3 storms, and greater storms the figure becomes almost trivial. These percentages, added to the public',ahd commercial summary, absorb the remainder of "in county" shelter demand satisfaction. This is summarized in Table 10. TABLE 10 SHELTER SATISFACTION IN CHARLOTTE COUNTY PERCENT MET CATEGORY JULY NOVEMBER 1 32.1 28.6 2 15.9 14.7 3 4.5 4.1 4 3.9 3.5 5 3.8 3.5 If shelter needs can'not be met within the County, they must be met outside of the County. For this reason, a knowledge of routes and route capacities becomes important. ROITES Arterial roadways form the backbone of any hurricane evacuation effort. Charlotte County's roadway system provides relatively. few options for evacuees coming from the coast. This --is- particularly true in the Cape Iaze area where 3 major highways narrow to just one (SR 776) across the Myakka River. Charlotte County Evacuation Routes are depicted on Map 5. Identification of routes is the first stop in assessing the roadway system. The next step is assessing roadway capacities. The capacities of these roadways have been developed based on their characteristics, tied to the assessme.nt methodologies of the Righway'Capacity Manual, 1985. These capacities are contained in Table l . An important aspect of any route is its condition. Many routes along the shore are low lying. Their propensity to flood due to sur-ge or tidal ac:tion causes their reliability to operate as a route to cease several hour-s before storm landfall. Appendix 1 depicts these possibilities. In most cases, however, winds, not shoreline flooding, will initially make'-roads unsafe for travel. �: - . .: . � ; : : -. .- .�.��'~.: - ..: . . ,, . . � . .,. -+ .. :1'; II-C-17 c'N c_ MAP 5 CHARLOTTE COUNTY EVACUATION ROUTES m m m m m -m m m! m - m m TABLE 11 EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS CHARLOTTE COUNTY PER- CENT NO PASSING ZONES MAXIMUM HRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) LANE # OF WIDTII LANES ,(FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPII) TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT 50/50 70/30 90/10 IIIGIIWAY TYPE ROUTE 1-75 Sarasota Co. to Lee Co. US 41 Sarasota Co. to Toledo Blade Blvd. Toledo Blade Blvd. to Harb.orview Dr. Harbarview Dr. to Aqui Esta Dr. Aqui Esta Dr. to Lee Co. US 17 Desoto Co. to CR 74 CR 74 to I-75 1-75 to US 41 2,407 2,260 2,034 2,014 2,260 4 4 4 4 4 12 70 Freeway 12 70 Rur.Div. 12 70 Sub.Div. 70 Sub. Div. 70 Rur. Div. 12 12 1,034 1,964 2,579 689 859 930 2 4 6 11 60 12 60 12 50 90 Sub. Div. Sub. Div. SR 775' Sarasota Co. to SR 776 SR 776 . SR 775't-o US .41 927 1,005 944 1,022 100 1,489 1,257 745 757 2 2 12 60 12 60 90 SR 31 Desoto Co. to Lee Co. CR 771 SR 776 to Boca Grande Caus.:eway 80 930 620 772 837 2 10 60 1,027 685 853 924 2 11 60 80 TABLE 11 (CONTINUEDI EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS CHARJOTTE COUNTY PER- CENT NO HIGIIWAY PASSING TYPE ZONES MAXIMUM HRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) LANE # OF WIDTH LANES '(FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPH) TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT 50/50 70/30 90/10 ROUTE CR 775 SR 776 to CR 771 CR 74 US 17 to SR 31 SR 31 to Glades Co. 2 11 60 12 60 9 60 90 1,027 1,063 751 685 709 500 853 882 623 924 957 675 2 2 80 80 CR 765 (Burnt Store Rd.) US 41 to Lee Co. Gasparilla Rd. CR 771 to Lee Co. King's Highway US 41 to Desoto Co. North -Rotonda/Sunnybrook SR 776 to Rotonda 2 2 2 12 70 80 1,241 1,061 880 1,228 1,274 748 707 586 690 767 931 1,009 H H 0 O 881 731 859 12 60 90 954 792 931 10 60 80 Blvd. 2 11 50 70 Toledo Blade Blvd. Sarasota Co. to US 41 Tuck&-r Grade Blvd. US 41 to 1-75 2 12 70 60 956 1,036 4 12 70 Rur.Div. 2,395 NOTE: 5: The Peak Hour Factor assumed to be .75 in t was assumed ALL cases to be .95 and the Driver Population Factor I , m wn_mm im - m I ~ I / I I I I I I I Rainra I I flooding, however, may constitute a greater hazard to evacuation route operation than either early shoreline flooding I or early winds. This is because roadways may flood and become partially or totally impassible early in an evacuation. Such areas have been documented for different storms and are depicted on Map 6. These are areas that must be passed before the presupposed onset of heavy rains, which is eight hours before eye landofall. This is relevant for Category 1 storms for most areas of Chairlotte County and for fewer areas for Category 2 or greater storms. Cl earance Times There are several factors taken into aCtount when calculating community clearance time. The first is the nature of the threat. Although there are no assurances that 'the County cannot be struck by Category 4 and 5 storms, the probabilities of this are low. The County does, however, lie subject to storms of Category 1, 2, and 3 strength in decreasing probability. With each storm of increasing strength, the number of persons and vehicles also increases. Other factors contributing to clearance time are the number of vehicles evacuating and the capacity of roadways to carry evacuees. This translates into a number of hours it will take to move persons past any given point. The final factors are the amount and distance of "stopping" opportunities offered evacuees, and the distance to these opportunities. If the largest amount of stopping opportunities needed are only ten miles inland, the time is much less for an evacuation than if they are 100 mie.cs distant. These factors compose the evacuation time. For certain suhzones within the County, times are less than for others. This variation is because pre-landfall flood conditions are not as bad, shelter locations are closer, and better quality evacuation routes are available. Table 12 summarizes pre-landfal.l fl-of- conditions, Tablle 13 summarizes shelter distances and options, * Q and Table 14 summarizes the time it takes to clear the most restrictive point on the route for each community for each of the slow, intermediate, and quick responses. TABLE 12 PRE-LANDFALL FLOOD, CONDITIONS __I TItME TO ZONE CATEGORY COASTAL FLOOD RAINFALL WIND I Myakka River 1 4.0 .8 5.0 Barrier Islands 1 4.5 8 5.5 Cape [raze 1 4.5 8 5.5 Port Charlotte 1 4.0 .8 5.0 Peace River 1 1.-0 8 4.5 Punta Gorda . 1 .' 1..0. - 8 . J,!5'.:-- II-C-21 I qr 775 CT71 U HorboI CT65 SR'31 LEE Co. PI 23 4 Miles SWFRPC 87- RNC -MAP 6 CHARLOTTE COUNTY ROUTES SUBJECT TO RAINFALL FLOODING r~~ -i - -- -- -- TABLE 12 (Continuedl PRE-LANDFALL FLOOD CONDITIONS TIME TO COASTAL FLOOD RAINFALL WIND ZONE CATEGORY South County Cape Haze Port Charlot.te Shell Creek Punta Gorda South County Cape fHaze Port Charlotte Shell Creek Punta Gorda 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3.0 5.0 4.5 1.5 1.5 _3.5 :5.5 4.0" ' '2.0 '2.0 8 8 8 8 ,8 8 8 8 8 8 5.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 8.5 7.5 '7.5 7.5 TABLE 13 DESIGNATIONS AND OPTIONS SHELTER PUBLIC SHELTERS NAME ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME CATEGORY ZONE I Myakka River 1 Barrier Islands 1 Cape Haze 1 Port Charlotte 1 Peace River 1 Punta Gorda I South County 2 Cape Haze 2 Port Charlotte 2 Shell Creek 2 Punta Gorda 2 South Counlty 3 All Category 3 Zones Port Charlotte High School Charlotte Vo-Tech Center Liberty Elementary School W. Charlotte Comm. Ctr. Lemon Bay High School L.A. Ainger School Vineland Elementary Lemon Bay High School L.A. Ainger School Vineland Elementary W. Charlotte Comm. Ctr. Charlotte Harbor School Port Charlotte High School Charlotte Vo-Tech Center Liberty Elementary School Port Charlotte Jr. High School Neal Armstrong Elementary School East Elementary School East Elementary School W. Charlotte Comm. Ctr. Liberty Elementary School Neal Armnstrong Elementary School Port Charlotte Jr. High School Liberty Elementary School No Shelter Availability No Shelter Availability No Shelter Availability .30 hr .40 hr .15 hr .15 hr .30 hr .30 hr .30 hr .30 hr .30 hr .50 hr .20 hr .20 hr .20 hr. .30--hf .20 hr .20 hr .30 hr .45 hr .20 hr- .50 hr .10 hr .10 hr .20 hr I I . I I I Il No Shelter Availability II-C-23 TABLE 14 TIME TO CLEAR -_ _ _ _JULY - - INTER- NOVEMBER INTEIR- CATEGORY ZONE RESTRICTING POINT , SR 776 SR 776 S1? 776 US 41 JUS 17 US 41 CR 765 C 775 Toledo Blade US 17 US 17 CR 765 Pine Street Kings Highway L CR 74 C1 765 TO COUNTY LIINE 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.7 SLIOW MEDIATE QUICK SLOW MEDIJAT QUIJCK 1.] 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.8 7.8 6.3 5.8 8.3 6.7 6.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 - 4.3 - - 1.4 - 1 1 i 1 H . H 1 to 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Myakka River 3arrier Is l ands Cape Hlaze Port Charlotte Peace River Punta Gorda South County Cape Hlaze Port Charlotte Shell Creek Punta Gorda South County Cape TIaze Port Charlotte Shell Creek Punta Gorda 5.5 4.5 - 3.1 0.8 :0.6 . 4.2 3.4:- 5.3 '5.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 - 0.8 4.2 0.7 3.5 5.0 0.3 0.5 0.1 3.9 2.7 0.6 2. 4.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 3.6 0.5 2.6 3.7 0.2 0.4 0.1 4.1 0.6 3.] 3.9 0.2 0.4 0.1 10.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 13.0 0.4 0.7 10.4 0.3 0.6 9.6 0.3 0.5 14.1 0.6 0.8 11.3 0.5 0. 5 ~~mm~~mmmm~m~mmm~ A constricting point from Table 14 (on the following page) may represent an ultimate constricting point for more than one zone. That being the case, it may be expected that these times (from Table 14) will become cumulative. This creates a "greatest time to clear" For the county as a whole. Table 15 depicts the "greatest time to clear" calculation for each category storm. TABLE 15 ULTIMATE CONSTRICTING ROUTE July_ November Constricting Inter- . Inter- Category Route Slow mediate Quick Slow mediate Quick 1 SR 776 9.6 7.7 . .7.1 10.3 8.3 7.-7 2 SR 776 9.6 7.7 7.1 10.3 8.3 7.7 3 Kings Highway 13.0 10.4 9.6 14.1 11.3 10.4 Clearly, route constriction becomes a concern when it is unevenly distributed between different parts of the County. .The relative isolation of the Cape Haze area, and much of the Barrier Islands region (which has no roads) limits evacuation capacity, causing large times on SR 776. Even so, it is conceivable that increased traffic control can better distribute loadings. In that case, the ultimate constricting points would move to the sum of the routes exiting the County. Table 16 depicts the times that may occur, given different routing scenarios. The last factor to be incorporated into calculating the County clearance time is the response of potential evacuees to an ev:lr:uation order. The original 1981-82 Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan discussed this topic on page 125, and concluded that seven hours would be the minimum time needed to clear a zone, because some evacuees would daudle more than others. More recent history indicates that sudden or dramatic changes in hurricanes caln heighten the evacuees response into a "qui-ck' evacuation, limited basically by road capacity. Consequently, in evaluating the f:inal criteria that determines a slow, intermediate, or quick evacuation, both slow and intermediate zones will have a minimum response time of seven hours; "quick" times, however, will be limited only by roadway capacity. All of these fact:ors combine into creating a countywide clearance time. Th is time will vary depending upon the routes available for count.y evacuation, the time of season, and whether it is a slow, intermediate, or quick response. Tabl.e 17 summari zees the con ribut iorn to the greatest clearance ti.me for the County for each category storm. :,................... ""' ..... i. . , II-C-25 TABLE 16 COUNTY EXITING ROUTES JULY NOVEMMBER SLOW INTER- OUICK SLOW INTER- QUICK MIED IATE ME DITATE, TOTAL OFl COMBINED CAPACITIES SLOIW INTER- QUICK ME, DIATEi VEITICLES TOTATL COITNTY LEAVING CO. VHITCL1ES ROUTES CATEGORY 3,966 4.9 4.4 4.3 5.6 5.1 4.9 5.5 8.1 5.4 67.9 71.4 84.1 85.3 95.5 95.9 84. 1 85.3 US4i/SR 776 UIS 17 US 41/SR 776 ITS 17/CR 74 same as 2(a) same as 2(a) plus 1-75 3,460 3,817 I(a) .. 16,931.(J) 19,520(N) 2(a) 7 25,387(J) 26,852(N) 5.2 6.4 5.7 7.6 9.53 8.5 5.1 6.0 5.6 4,169 4,699 4,923 6.1 5.4 4,,169 4,699 4,1923 9.0 8.0 6,576 7,106 7,330 5.7 5.3 9 (a) 37,520(J) 39,730(N) H H 3(b) ) 37,529(J) 39,730(N) - - ~ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- -- - -- - ----mm~ mmm N -I TABLE 17 CLEARANCE TIME ---OUT SUMMARY I NT El- SLOW MEDIATE QUITCK I N TE R - SLOW MEDIATE QUICK WEATHER (2) .CATEGORY DESTINATION(1) 0 . 7 8 (J) 7.9 (J) 6.3 (N) 8.6 (N) 6.9 (3) 5. 8 (N) 6. 4 (J)16.6 (J)15.0 (N)17.3 (N)15.6 (J) 1.4. 5 (N) 15. 1 0. 7 8 (J) 5.0 (J) 4.0 (N) 5.4 (N) 4.3 (J) 3. 7 (N) 4.0 (J)13.7 (!J)12.7 (N) 14. 1 (N).13. 0 (J) 1 2. 4 (N) 1 2. 7 3 0. 7 S. 5 (J)12.8 (J)10.3 (N)3.4.4 (N)II.5 (J) 9. 5 (N) 10 .7 (J)22.0 (J)19.5 (N)230.6 (N)20.7 (J ) 17. 6 (N) 19. 9 H H I) (1) Fro Table, 13,or 14, whichever is greater (2) From Table .1.2 U PART II - 1991 FORECASTS Part of hurricane preparedness involved understanding and I evaluating the growth that the study shows Charlotte County may expect in the forthcoming years. This element discusses short- ranged growth (4 years) the County may undergo, and the falcilities that are expected to be added to serve that growth. The growth predicted follows a single straight-lined forecast technique. Applied uniformly, increases by category an I community for housing, persons, 'and vehicles for ]991 are depicted in Tables 18, 19 and 20. Table 18 forecasts a total of 57,151 dwelling units for 1991. Table 19 forecasts a total of 99,710 persons in July; and 113,020 in November. Table 20 forecasts a total of 50,359 vehicles in July; and 56,515 vehicles in November. The additional facilities expected can be categorized as "shelters" and "routes." Route improvements can be determined from county and State five-year plans. Shelters (schools) can be estimated from school board plans for new construction and improvements to existing schools which in turn are based on projected population growth. I I I I I I I ;-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ II-C-28 TABLE 18 CHARLOTTE COUNTY - HOUSING ESTIMATES FOR 1991 (Based on projected units of 57,151) Storm Residential Mobi l e Travel- _ . }ulti-Fami_ ly Hotel- Category Zone Single-Family Home Trailer Apartment Condo Duplex Motel Total, I Nlyakka River 891 69 N/P* 20 24 N/I' N/P 1,004 I Barrier Islands 5,321 749 112 377 927 2 177 7,665 I Canc flaye. 282 6,1/6 N/P N/P N/ P N/P 928 I1 Port Charlotte 8,686 N/P N/P 445 1,102 N/P 186 10,419 1 Peace R:iver 2,684 1,411 25 202 86 6 351 4,765 '1 Punta Gorda 4,426 1,832 455 102 952 N/P 187 7,954 .1 South County 530 121 N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P 657 TOTALS ZONE 1 22,820 4,328 592 1,146 3,091 8 901 33,386 :2 Cape taze 2,013 1,677 N/P N/P 148 2 98 3,938 2 Port Charlo'. t 3,598 N/ P N/P N/P 1,217 99 N/P 4,914 2 Shell Creekl 202 18 N/P 4 N/P N/P N/P 224 H 2 Punta Gorda 327 85 N/P N/P N/P N/P 9 121 H I .2 South County 14 N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P 14 C)~ ~ ~~~~~- tQ TOTALS ZONE 2 6,1.54 1,780 N/P 4 1,.65 . 101 107 9,511 3 Capc Haze a730 N/P N/P N/P N/P./ 31 N/P 761 ..3 Port Charlotte 7,584 1,772 N/P N/P 23ff- 8 1.00 9,687 "::' 3 Shell Creek .166 358 80 N/P ' N/P N/P I/P 604 ;.3 Punta Gorda 350 203 N/P N/P 2 N/P 200 755 TOT:ALS ZONE 3 8,830 2,333 80 N/P 225 39 300 11,807 ." Port Charlotte 140 N/P N/P N/P 705 . N/P N/P 845 4 Shel1. Creek 66 N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P 66 fI.'4 Acl i ne 227 811 138 N/P N/P N/P 25 1,201 7, Wcbb 638 N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P 638 TOTA:LS ZONE 4 1,071 811 138 N/P 705 N/P 25 2,750 .i North CounLy N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P ;73<,5 Webb 17 [ N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P 17 TOTALS zo0, 5 17 N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P N/P 17 't No .rojection TABLE 19 CHARLOTTE COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1991 Storm Population Estimate Category Zone July November I Myakka River 1,985 2,064 Barrier Islands 13,709 14,777 Cape Haze 1,200 1,66]. Port Charlotte 20,296 20,918 Peace River 7,791 8,896 Punta Gorda 1.2,611 14,556 South County 1,222' 1,319 Mob:ile Homes & Recreational 4,,658 8,1.25 Vehicles, not otherwise - included in the above flood prone areas (Category 2 - 5 Areas) TOTAL ZONE 1 63,474 72,405 | 2 Cape Haze 6,080 7,367 Port Charlotte 9,092 9,526 Shell Creek 445 463 Punta Gorda 773 842 South County 29 30 Mobile Homes & Recreational 2,974 5,188 Vehicles, not otherwise in- cluded in the above flood prone areas (Category 3 - 5 Areas) NEW EVACUEES 14,737 15,291 TOTALS 1 - 2 78,210 87,696 3 Cape Haze 1,709 1,609 Port Charlotte 16,129 19,425 Shell Creek 63.6 1,013 ... . Punta Gorda 1,090 1,354 - Mobile Ilomes & Recreational 767 1,338 Vehicles, not otherwise in- cluded in the above flood prone areas (Category 4-5 Areas) NEW EVACUEES 17,337 19,552 TOTALS 1 - 3 955,548, 107,248 I II-C-30 TABLE 19 (Continuedl CHARLOTTE COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1991 Storm Population Estimate Ca Legory Zone July November 4 Port Charlotte 1,288 1,288 Shell Creek 174 139 Acline 604 1,891 Webb 1,382 1,347 Mobile Homes & Recreational. 0 0 Vehicles, not otherwise in-- cluded in the above flood prone area (Category 5 Area) NEW EVACUEES 2,681 3,328 TOTALS I -- 4 98,229 110,576 5 North County 0 0 Webb 36 36 Mobile Homes 0 0 NEW EVACUEES 36 36 TOTALS 1 - 5 98,264 110,612 TABLE 20 MOTOR VEHICLE ESTIMATES FOR 1991 Population Estimate Storm Recreational Recreational Category Zone July Vehicle November Veh:i.cle I Myakka River 997 0 1,032 0 Barrier Islands 6,863 20 7,338 51. Cape Haze 600 0 831 0 Port Charlotte! 10,185 0 10,459 - Peace River 3,907 5 4,482 11 Punta Gorda 6,224 82 7,073 205 South County 611 - 660 0 TOTAL ZONE 1 29,387 1.07 31,873 267 2 Cape Ifaze 3,040 0 3,683 0 Port Charlotte 4,546 0 4,761 0 Sthell. Creek 223 0 232 0 Punta Corda 387 0 421 0 South County 15 0 15 0 TOTAL ZONE 2 8,210 0 9,112 0 ~~~~~~~~~~.~~.y'.~ II-C-31 TABLE 20 (Continued) MOTOR VEHICLE ESTIMATES FOR 1991 I Population Estimate Storm Recreational Recreational Category Zone July Vehicle November Vehicle 3 Cape Haze 795 0 804 0 Port Charlotte 8,962 0 9,712 0 Shell Creek 343 14 471 36 Punta Gorda 582 0 677 0 TOTAL ZONE 3 10,682 14 11,664 36 4 Port Charlotte 542 0 644 0 Shell Creek 69 0 70 0 Acline 636 25 926 62 Webb 667 0 674 0 I TOTAL ZONE 4 1,913 25 2,314 62 5 North County 0 0 0 0 Webb 18 0 18 0 TOTAL ZONE 5 18 0 18 0 TOTAL ALL ZONES 50,210 146 54,980 365 TABLE 21 1991 PUBLIC SHELTER CAPACITY ! Storm Shelter Evacuating Population X Population Sheltered Category Space July November July November 1 28,354 63,474 72,405 44.7 39.2 - - 2 23,838 78,210 87,696 30.5 27. - 3 19,433 95,548 107,248 20.3 18.1 4 19,433 98,229 110,576 19.8 18.1 5 19,433 98,264 110,612 19.8 17.6 County wide, the above figures would represent an increase of 2,001 square feet, or 16.2%. Route improvements for the next five-year period indicate some improvements will be made to routes exiting the Category 1..zones. Using the 1985-1990 CIP of the Charlotte County Metropolitan Planning Organization as a guide, the following significant improvements are forecasted: (a) King's Hlighway 4-laning from Harborview to 1-75 (b) Pine Street 4-laning from SR 776 to County Line (c) Edgewater 4-laning segments from US 41 to Harbor (9 CR 7:7.5 .. : .. ; 4-laning from San .Cas.a-to.SR,':775' :' '' ";'.' ;., . II-C-32 (e) (f) (g) (i ) 4-laning froim Edgewater to US 41 4-laning from IUS 41 to SR 776 2-laning from CR 775 to County Line 2-laIing from US 41 to Taylor Road US 41 to 1-75 Ha arbor Toledo Blade Winchester Jones Loop Ext. Kennilworth Blvd. TABLE 22 REVISED CAPACITIES New Capacity Old Capacity 792 (quick) 924 (quick) 931 (quick) Rou: e King's fighway, iiarborview - 1-75 Pine Street, SR 776 - County Line Edgcwater, TIS 41 - Harbor CR 775, San Casa - SR 775 Harbor, Edgewater - US 41 Toledo Blade, US 41 - SR 776 Winchester, CR 775 - County Line Jones Loop Ext., US 41 - Taylor Rd. Kennilworth Blvd., US 41 - 1-75 2,.346 1,846'- 1, 828 2,800* 1,828 2,800* 1,301 1,323 1,346 *Ideal. Capacity Assuming that these improvements are in place, new shelter satisfaction capacities (Table 23), time to clear (Table 24), ultimate constricting route (Table 25), exiting route assessments (Table 26), and clearance time calculations (Table 27) can be made. The County is planning to construct five new schools around the county between now and 1992. All of these new projects will (as of now) be at least in the Category III surge zone, therefore, the assumption is made that all will be useable as shelters. The sizes of these schools can only be estimated and the useable square feet in then a further estimation. As of 1987 based on preliminary school location, school size and category of storm,- it is estimated there will be space for 14,000 people (at 20 ftq.- ft./person) in these new shelters. TABLE 23 SHELTER SATISFACTION IN CHARLOTTE COUNTY_ FOR 1991 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Per.cent' Met July November Category 1 2 3 4 5 53. 6 34.8 20. 8 19.8 1. 9.8 47.5 31.6 18.6 17.6 17.6 Thanks to the County's agressive building program,. the total amount -of spac-e will increase :.127%.over 'what it, is. now.. The.:-. II-C-33 TABLE 24 TIME TO CLEAR, 1991 JULY ___ NOVEMBIR CATEGORY ZONE . RESTRTCTING INTER- INTER- TO COUNTY POINT SLOW MEDIATE QUICK SLOW MEDIATE OUICK LINE 1 Myakka River SR 776 1.3 1.] 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.5 1. Barrier ITsland.r SR 776' 9.3 7.4 6.9 (0.] 8.1 7.5 0.5 1. Cape lHaze SR 776 0.6 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.5 1, Por-t. Charlot:te US 4] - 4.9 -- 5.3 - 0.3 1 Peace River US 17 5.5 4.4 4.1 6.7 5.4 5.0 0.3 1 Punta Gorda IJS 41 - 3.0 - - 3.7 - 0.4 H 1 South County CR 765 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 H 2. Cape Hlaze CR 771 4.0 3.2 2.9 5.4 4.4 4.0 0.5 2.; Port Charlotte US 41 - 1.1. - - 11 0.3 2. Shell Creek IIS 17 0.3 0.3 0.4 0 .3. 0.3 0.2 21 Punta Gorda US 17 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 2' South Countty CR 765 <0.1 <0.] 0.1 < 0.] < 0.1 < 0.1 0.8 3.[ Cape Haze SR 776 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.9 . 0.8 0.4 3:.f Port Charlotte US 1. - 2.1 - -- 2.3 - 0.2 3'.' Shell Creek US 17 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.2 3. Punta Gorda Jones Loop Ext. - 0.7 -- 0.8 - 0.3 The :.only route representing distiq6t improvement for 1991, would be Jones Loop Extension, which will?allow greater access to 1-75 for Punta Gorda residents. UIowever, Toledo Blade, Winchester, str-ee.t and CR 775 all act, to decrease the times shown in the last column. Improvements will still be n.&Pded on SR 776, the only route from the Cape Haze area to US 11. population growth as estimated by the straight-line process will increase about 18%. As a result, shelter satisfaction within the County will increase. Several caveats must be kept in mind: shelter sizes and useable square feet are only early estimates; school location is planned for Category III areas, but that could change; and the school construction program is through 1992 whereas population increase is only through 1991. Therefore, the numbers in Table 23 will. be somewhat lower than as shown. Because route improvements are not- county-wide,. traffic and population increases can only worsen -evacuation and c]learanrce ties unless comparable out-of-counLy route improvements are made. Using the improvements listed, there are route improvements forecasted that improve in-county movement capacities. TABLE 25 ULTIMATE CONSTRICTING ROUTES FOR 1991 _ _ _Jutly____ ____November Constricting Inter- Inter- Category Route Slow mediate Quick Slow mediate Quick 1 SR 776 1]1.2 9.0 8.3 12.6 10.1 9.3 2 CR 771 4.4 3.6 3.3 5.4 4.3 4.0 3 US 41 - 4.4 - 4.8 - ,, TABLE 26 COUNTY EXITING ROUTES TITMES JULY NOVEMBER SLOW TNTER- OUICK SLOW INTE"R- QUITCK WMT DIA TE MIDI TAT1 - TOTA T, CATEGORY VEhIITCLES LEAVING CO. I% OF TOTAT, COMITY VEIITC LES COMBINED CAPACITIES SLOW INTER-- QUTCK MED TMTE ROUTES 2,771 2,958 3,036 4.9 4.6 2,703 2,873 2,914 5.. 4.8 4.5 5.6 5.2 4.7 5.7 5.4 6.3 7.4 .. 6.7 6.2 7.4 6.7 5.1 5.3 6.6 6.5 7.3 I1(a) I13,703(.J) 15,504 () l(b) 13,703(J) 15,504(N) 2(a) 24,608(J) d25,816(N) 2(b) . 24,608(J) 25,816(N) 3(a) - 38,353(J) 39,418(N) 46.1 '16.1 52.5 US41l/SR 776 UJS 4.1/US 17 65.2 US 41/SR 776 68.4 CR 74 3,480 3,840 3,933 7.1 6.4 H I..I I- I LO mr 3,470 3,829 3,980 7.1 6.4 65. 2 68.4 79.2 81.4 UiS 41/US 17/ Toledo Blade T-75/US 41/ CR 74 5,130 5,303 5,378 7.5 7.2 .7.I1 ' 7.73 7.4 5,110 5,280 5,351 7.5 7.3 .7.2 7.7 7.5 7.4 3(b) 38,353(J) 39,418(N) 79.2 1-75/US 41/ 81.4 ST? .7 I . - m - - - m -- - - - -- -m TABLE 27 CLEARANCE TIME ROUTE- TNTE H-- SLOW MEDIATE QUICK S U MM ARY TNTE,R- SLOW MEDIATE QUICK (J)17.9 (J)16.l (J)15.5 (N)18.7 (N)1.6.6 (N)16.O CA-TEGORY DESTTNATION(l) WP,ATITHER (2) ] . O .-, 08 (J) 9.1 (J) 7.3 (J1) 6.7 (N) 9.8 (N) 7.8 (N) 7.2 2 0. 0 k 8 (J) 4.1 (J) -.6 (.J) 3.3 (J)M3.2 (J)12.4 J)12.1 (N) 5.4 (N) 4.3 (N) 4.0 (N)14.2 (N)]3.I (N)12.8 (J) 1.1 (J) 4.4 (J) 0.8 (J1) 9.5 (J)12.8 (J) 9.2 (N) 1.1 (N) 4.8 (N) 0.8 (N) 9.5 (N)13.2 (N) 9.2 H H ( I I Li ' 3 0.4 (1) From Tabl'e 13, 14 or 24, whichever is greater (2) From Table 12 CHARLOTTE COUINTY APPENDIX A - PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARDS TIMES The pre-cye landfall hazard times projected by the SLOSH model appear in the following table. The table consists of the estimated times for each selected grid point, by storm category (1-5) and type of storm track (landfalling, parallel arind 1 crossing). In all cases, the worst probable times are used. The table is divided into 50 parts, for category 1 through 5 respectively. The first column names the grid point being examined, followed by the projected- time, in hours before estimaLed eye landfall, that tidal flooding would reach that point. This time estimate is followed by a code "identifying the i particular storm track producing this worst probably (longest) time. These coded storm tracks are fully described in Table 1, giving the track's landfall point and the area receivirng the maximum surge and/or winds. The next column, "Total Duration in U Hours" lists the length of time the grid point is projected to experience one foot or more of flooding in a 24-hour period. Following these figures, the next column lists the projected time, in hours before estimated eye landfall, that sustained gale force winds would reach the grid point. Again, this is followed by the coded storm track producing the worst probable (longest) times, and the duration each point is expected to experience the wind force during a 24-hour period. Note that "sustained gale force winds" regers to winds sustained at over 40 mphti. In all cases, eye landfall is the reference point used to determine pre- eye landfall hazard times. 1 I I APrENDTIX A PRE-EYE LANDFALL IfAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 1 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUlSTA INED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) I TOTAT, , :TN liRMrRl 8.5 - 5I 8.5 8.5 8. 8.5 1 8R 5 8.5 3.5 8 8.51 8.5 | 9 9g LANDFALLING TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN TIOURS GRID STOIM POINrTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING ( 1 ) STORf TRACK (70 (70 (60 (75 (60 (65 (75 (75 (55 (75 (75 (75 NS) NS) NS) NS) Cape EHaze Charlotte Co. Line Pl acida Alligator Creek Acline Punta Gorda Isles US 41 Bridge East Punta Corda East Grassy Point West Iffrbor View Alligator Bay 771 Bridge Ainger Creek Englewood Beach 3 2 1 3 0 1 1 3 0 4 4.5 4 12 10 '13 5.5 5.5 4.5 4 4.5 4..5 4 4.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 5.5 (60 NS) (45 NS) (55 NS) (45 NS) (40 NS) (55 NS) (60 NS) (45 "NS ) (55 N'S) (45 NS) (55 NS) (55 NS) (55 NS) (55 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 7.5 10 10 12 11.5 13 13.5 13 LA,NDFALLING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 2 HOURS BEFOIRE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WTINDS(2) TOTAL DItATIl, STORM TIN TRACK HOURS GRID STORM PO INTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING (1) TOTAL STORM DILRATION TRACK IN HOURS 10 I 10. 5 10 10.51 9.5 - 9.5 10 I 10 10.5 I 10.u 10 10.5 5 Cape Haze Charlotte Co. Line Placida Alligator Creek Acline Punta Gorda Isles US 41 Bridge East Punta Gorda East Grassy Point West Ha;lrbor VicJw Alligator Bay 771 Bridge Ainger Creek Englewood Beach 4 2.5 2.5 3.5 1 1.5 1.5 3.5 - .5 1 4.5 5 4.5 (75 (75 (70 (75 (65 (70 (75 (75 (60 (70 (70 (75 (75 NS) NS) NS) NS) 13 11.5 11.5 12.5 6.5 6 7 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 6.5 (60 NS) (45 NS) (6' NS7 (45 NS) (60 NS) (60 NS) (60 NS) (60 NS) (60 NS) (45 NS) (60 NS) ,(60 NS) (65 NS) (65 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 10 10.5 10.5 12.5 6 10 7.59 14 13.5 (1) Greatest time before landfall - not necessarily for worst case storm; some tracks cause early flooding even though they may not produce highest surge - if more than I track produces same time, the one wit.h the worse surge then chosen. (2) Greatest Lime before landfall - same is true for winds as above for floodingf. 'm 2 I APPENDIX A LANDFALLING PRE--EYE LANDFALL HAUZARD TIMES -- CATEGORY 3 TOTJRS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL'- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WTNDS(2) 8 8 8.5 7.5 7 7-5 7 7 7.5 7. 7.5 7.5 8.5 8.5 TOTAL DURATION STORMi TN TRACK TIOUTRS 1lOUfRS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL-- FLOODIN3(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS POINTS Cape Haze -Charlotte Co. Line *PI ac ida Alligator Creek Acline Punta Gorda Isles U TS 41 Bridre East Punta Gorda Eust Grassy Point Jest Hlarbor View Alligator Bay 771 Bridge Ainifer Creek 1~Eng;lewood Beach (55 (55 (60 (55 (40 (65 (50 (55 (65 (55 (65 (55 (65 (70 1i3.~ 5 12.5' 13 12.5 3.5 11 11.5 11 13 9.5 11 14.5 14.5 14.5 4.5 3.5 4 3.5 -.5 2 2.5 2 4 5 2 5.5 5.5 5.5 (75 (75 (75 (70 (45 (70 (75 (70 (70 (60 (65 (75 (75 (75 NS) NS) NS) NSY NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS ) NS) NS) 1.35, 13 13.5 13 13.5 12.5 13.5 13 13 13.5 13 13.5 13.5 13 LAM) FALLING PRE--EYE LANDFALL LhAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 4 HOURS BEFIORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DIJRATION STORM IN TRAkCK. IIOURS GRID STORM POINTS IIOUT?S BEFORE EYE LANDFALL-- FLOODING(l) TOTAL STO RM DURATION TRACK IN HIOURS U Cape liaze CharlotLe Co. Line lacidna Alligator Creek Acline "unta Gorda Isles (IS 41 Bridge East Punita Gorda EasL Grossy Poini -West ffarbor View 'Aligator Bay .771. Bridge nger Creek Fnglewood Beach (75 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (60 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (70 NS) (70 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (70 NS) 14 13 13.5 13 5 11.5 12 12 13.5 12.5 1.3. 5 15 15 15 9.5 9.5 10 9 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9 81.5 9.5 9 7.5 1.0 (55 NS)- (60 --S T (60 NS) (60 NS) (50 NS) (50 NTS) (55 NS) (55 NS) (70 NS) (60 NS) (75 NS) (60 N') (65 NS) (75 NS) 15 - 14.5 15 .14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 11.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14. 5 15 1-5 some 5 4 4.5 4 _5 2.5 3 3 -.1.5 *1'5 2.5 6 6 6 landfall - not necessarily for worst (1 ) Grcatest t.imTe before case storm; trac_ks (r-Iuse: carly flood(irig even though they may not produce highest surge -- if I more thin 1 track produces same t(1me, the one with' thc,.worse surge.- then ic-hosen. (2) Greatest time b)efore landfall - saime is true 'for winds as abovce ior flooding. 3 I APPENDIX A I LANDFALLING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 5 TOTA DURATIN STORM IN TRACK HOIu R| HOlRS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL-- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS Cape Haze Charlotte Co. Line Placida Alligator Creek Aclinc Punta Gorda Isles US 41 Bridge East Punta Gorda East Grassy Point West IHarbor View Alligator Bay 771 Bridge Ainger Crcek Englewood Beach HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL-- FLOODITNG(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS (75 (75 (70 (75 (35 (75 (75 (75 (75 (75 (75 (75 (75 (75 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) (60 (55 (55 (45 (60 (60 (60 (60 (60 (50 (60 (65 (60 (75 5 3.5 4 4 -.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 ,4. 5 2 2.5 6 6 6 14 12.5 13 ' 13 .4.5 '11.5 11.5 11.5 13.5 10 11.5 15 15 15 9. 8.5 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7.5 8 7.5 9 9.5 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 13.5 13.5 I 14 13 5 13 13 13 * 13.5 13.5 13.5 I 14 3 13.5 PARALLEL PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 1 TOTAI DURATITO STORM IN TRACK HOUR IOTURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL STORM DTURATION TRACK IN HOURS GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LA;NDFALL- FLOODING(I2 ) -9 -9 (60 WS) (60 WS) (15 wS) (15 ES) (3.5 ES) ( O S). ( o- st (15 ES) (15 ES) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) ( 0 s) (15 ES) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) (15 WS) (15 WS) Cape Haze Charlotte Co. Line P] acida Alligator Creek Acline Punta Gorda Isles US 4] Bridge East Punta Gorda East Grassy Point West Harbor View Alligator .ay 771 Bridge Aingfer Creek Englewood Beach 3 3 6 : .5 4.5 7.5 6.5 3 3 2 2.5 4 3.5 2 2 2 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 12 12.5 8.5 8.5 9 8.5 8 8 8 8.5 8.5 9 8.5 8.5 I I I I -11.5 -7.5 -4.5 -4.5 (60 WS) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) I I (1) Greatest time before landfall - not necessarily for worst tracks cause early flooding even though they may not produce more than I track prodluces same time, the one with the worse case storm; some highest surge - if surge then chosen. !! (2) Greatest time before landfall - same is true for winds as above for flooding. I 4 I APPENDIX A PARALLEL PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 2 IHOIRS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DIUATION STORM IN TRACK HOULRS GRID STOIM POINTS IEOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(l) TOTAL DURATION IN fIOURS STORMI TRACK Cape Haze CI harlotte Co. Line Placida Alligator Creek Acline Punta Gorda Isles US 41 Bridge East Punta Gorda East Grassy Point West fHarbor View Alligator Bay 771 Bridge Ainger Creek Englewood Beach -7 -7 ( 0 S) ( 0 s) 5 5 6. 5 4.5 4.5 3.5 4 4.5 4 4 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 3 2.5 (15 (0 (0 (0 (15. (15 (15 (15 ( 0 (15 (15 ( 0 ( ( ES) S) S) S) ES) ES) ES) ES) S) ES) ES) S) S) S) 11 1.0.5 1.0.5 11 11 11 11 11 10.5 10.5 10.5 11 11 10.5 --5 (15 ES) 12 12 -8 (60 WS) (60 WS) ( 0 S) 24 24 4 S) S) S) -7 -4 -5 ( 0 ( 0 (0 5 8 7 PARALLEL PRE-EYE TANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 3 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS GRID STORM POIN"TS IIOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS Cape Taze Charlotte Co. Line Placida Alligator Creek Acl i ne Punta Gorda Isles US 41 Bridge East Punta Gorda East Grassy Point West lHarbor View Al l [gator IBay 771 Bridge Aingier Creek Englewood( Beach -3.5 -3.5 -4 - -4 ( 0 (0 ( 0 (15 S) S) S) ES) 8.5 8.5 8 8 6 6.5 5.5 5.. 5 6 5.5 5.5 5.5 5 5 5 5 4.5 4.5 ( 0 S) ( 0 S) ( 0 S). ( o-sT (15 ES) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) (15 ES) (15 ES) ( o s) (15 ES) ( 0 S) (15 WS) (15 WS) 14 14 14. 13.5 14 13.5 14 14 13.5 13.5 13.5 14 13.5 14 -4.5 --5 -5 -4.5 --6 --5 -5 --4 --I ( 0 S) (o s) ( 0 S) (0 s ) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) ( 0 s ) ( o S) ( 0 s) 7.5 7 7 7.5 .5 7 8 I (1) Greatest time before landfal].l - not necessarily for worst tracks cause early flooding even though they may not produce more than I track produces same time, the one with the worse case storm; some highest surge - if surge then chosen. (2) Greatest time before landfall. - same is true for winds as above for flooding. 7,:/ '~~ : ' " ' ' .. .~ .' ' .:-'.'.:' .'"'� ....... ..( "::.:.:' .:. ,. .........' -- , : .';:;- ." :'' ~ �� �~ .r . . - -, ;. 5 I APPENDIX A PARALLEL PRE--EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 4 TOTA DURATIN STORM IN TRACK HIOURS I HOLmS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL-- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POI NTS Cape HIaze Charlotte Co. Li-ne Placida Alligator Creek Acline Punta Gorda Isles US 41 Bridge East Punta Gorda East Grassy Point West Harbor View Alligator Bay 771 Bridge Ainger Creek Englewood Beach IHOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING( .) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOIRS (30 (30 (30 (30 -5 -5.5 -5 -5.5 WS) WS) WS) WS ) WS) WS) WS) ws) 7 6.5 ;7 6. 5.: .55 5 5 5.5 6 6.5 6 6 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30. (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 WS) WS) WS) WS) WS ) WI S) WS ) WS) WS) WS) WS) WS) WS) wS) 15.5 16 16.5 16 15 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 1].6.5 -7 -7 -7 -6.5 -7 -6 -4.5 -4.5 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (60 (60 WS) WS) WS) WS) 5 6 7.5 7.5 I PARALLEL - 60 WS ONLY PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 5 TOTATl DURATION STORM IN TRACK TIOuns TRACK IIOURS I 11.5 11.51 12.5 _ '_. 10 9.5 1 9.5 9.5 9.5 10.5 12.5 U 113 tIOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WTNDS(2) GRID STOiRM POINTS IIOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(l) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOUIRS Cape Haze Charlotte Co. Line Placida Alligator Creek Acline Punta Gorda Isles US 41 Bridge East Punta Gorda East Grassy Point West Harbor View Alligator Bay 771 Bridge Ainger Creek Englewood Beach --6.5 -6.5 -6.5 --7 5.5 5.5 3.5 5 4 4 4 3 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 3 2.5 3 3 -9.5 -8 -9 --8 2.5 3.5 3 4 3 4. .5 7 7 -7.5 -5 -5 I (1) Greatest time before landfall - not necessarily for worst tracks cause early flooding even thoughi they may not produce Tnnrf_r-+ hflin I rtz rI rr-nlixr-r., fl uroIn ft%c-- 1 o,i Itr f; tlif Wr!:cf case storm; somc highest surge - if urffre ith-obn c-hsexn IJUrl j L IlU �I tL r L.fl jS t U[lJtACt; bUlillItI LICU S2 I LICS VIC I . LiL LIltI WtUl. Z,: Ua AC LllGll CIUVoll.- (2) Greatest time before landfall - same is true for winds as above for flooding. ';{{': .; ., . .: ." ; " ... 6 I APPENDIX A CROSSING PRE-EYE LANDFALL hAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 1 I OIORS BEFORE, TOTAL GRID HIOlmS BEFORE TOTAL EYE LANDFALL- DURATION STORM EYE LANDFALL- STOI1M DURATION SUSTAINED GALE STORM IN POINTS FLOODING(1) TRACK IN HOURS FORCE WINDS(2) TRACK HOURS Cape Haze - .5 (45 NS) 9.5 6 (45 NS) 9 Charlotte Co. Line 3 (45 NS) -13 6.-5 (45 NS) 9 i Placida . 5 (45 NS) 9 Alligator Creek .5 (45 NS) 10.5'` 6.5 (45 NS) 9.5 Acline . 7 (45- NS) 10 Punta Gorda Isles 6.5 (45 NS) 10 US 41 Bridge -1.5 (45 NS) 8.5 6.5 (45 NS) 10 East Punta Gorda -1.5 (45 NS) 8.5 6.5 (45 NS) 9.5 East Grassy Point - :5 (45 NS) 9.5 6.5 (45 NS) 10 West Harbor View 6.5 (45 NS) 10 Alligator B:ay 6 (45 NS) 9.5 771 Bridge -2. (45 NS) 8 5.5. (45 NS) 9.5 Ainger Creek -1 (45 NS) 9 5 (45 NS) 9.5 Englewood Beach -2.5 (45 NS) 7.5 4.5 (45 NS) 9 CROSSING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIRES - CATEGORY 2 3 IIOlUS BEFORE TOTALT GRID HIOURS BEFORE TOTAL EYE LANDFALL- DURATION STORM EYE,. LANDFALL- STOIRM DURATION SUSTATNED GALE STORM IN POINTS FLOODTNG(l) TRACK IN HOURS FORCE WINDSI(2) TRACK IHOURS Cape Haze .5 (45 NS) 9.5 7 (30 NS) 12 Charlotte Co. Line 7.5 (45 NS) 13.5 7.5 (30 NS) 12 * Placida 6 (30 NS). 11.5 Alligator Creek I1 (45 NS) 11 8 (45-NS- 12 Acline 8 (45 NS) 12 Punta Gorda Isles 7.5 (45 NS) 11. 5 US 41 Bridge -1 (45 NS) 9 8 (45 NS) 12 East Punta Gorda -1 (45 NS) 9 8 (45 NS) 3.2 east Grassy Point -- .5 (45 NS) 9.5 7.5 (45 NS) 12 West Harbor View 8 (45 NS) 12 Alligator Bay -2 (45 NS) 8 7.5 (45 NS) 12 77T BridgEe --2 (45 NS) 8 6.5 (45 NS) 11.5 i Alner Creek -I (45 NS) 9 55. (15 NTS 11.5 Erngllewood lter;lch -2 (45 NS) 8 5.5 (45 NS) 11.5 (I ) GCreatest time ibefore landfall - not neccessarily for worst case storm; some tracks cu:;sc early flooding even thoughl they may not produce highest surge -- if more tlhan I track produces same time, the one with the worse surgec thenr chosen. (i2) CGr-e:tes!: time before l.andfall - same is true for-winds as above for flooding. !7 I APPENDIX A CROSS INC I PRE-EYE LANDFALL hAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 3 TOT.a1 DURAT"IN STOrI! IN TRACK O1uRS0 ,to s HIOUJRS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS GRID STORM POINTS HIorms BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (30 (30 Cape IIaze Charlotte Co. Line Pl.acida Alligator Creek Acline :Punta Gorda Isles US 41 Bridge East Punta Gorda East Grassy Point West Harbor View Alligator Bay 771 Bridge Ainger Creek Englewood Beach 0 4 -1 I - .5 -3.5 -1.5 - .5 -1.5 10 14 9 11 .9.5 9 9.5 10 6.5 9 8.5 9.5 8.5 6.5 7 5.5 7 7 6.5 7 7 6.5 7 6.5 6 5 5 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 12 12 12 12.5 12 12 12.5 12.5 12.5 I 13 12.5 11,.5 13 1.3 1 I I I I I I I I (1) Greatest time before landfall - not necessarily for worst tracks cause early flooding even though they may not pr-oduce more than 1 track produces same time, thle one with the worse case storm; some highest surge - if surge then chosen. (2) Greatest time before landfall - same is true for winds as above for flooding. .. 8 .. .. - 8 II I SARASOTA COUNTY - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page # Hurricane Vulnerability ..............................II-D-1. Recent Storm History .................................II-D-2 Affected Population ..................................II-D-5 Motor Vehicles .......................................II-D-10 Shelters .............................................II-D-10 Routes ..............................................II-D-15 Clearance Times ......................................II-D-20 1991 Forecasts ....................... .................II-D-26 APPENDIX - Hazard Times.............. I LIST OF MAPS Map Page # 1. SLOSH Model Storm History Points ..................II-D-3 2. Maximum Areas Subject to Flooding .................II-D-4 3. Evacuation Zones ..................................II-D-6 4. Red Cross Managed Public Shelter Locations ........II-D-12 5. Evacuation Routes .................................II-D-16 6. Routes Subject to Rainfall Flooding ...............II-D-19 LIST OF TABLES Table Page # 1. * 22. 3. 4. I ~~~~~ 5 6. 7. * ~~ ~~ 8 9. 10. 11. * 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. I 1 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. .27. Predicted Coastal Storm Surges ....................II-D-4 1987 Housing Units ................................II-D-7 Seasonal Occupancy Rates ..........................II-D-8 Population Estimates ..............................II-D-9 Vehicle Estimates .................................II-D-10 Shelters ..........................................II-D-11 Public Shelter Capacity ...........................II-D-13 Population Displacement Ratio .....................II-D-14 Shelter Satisfaction ..............................II-D-15 Evacuation Route Capacity Calculation .............II-D-17 - Pre-Landfall Flood Conditions .....................II-D-20 Shelter Designations and Options ..................II-D-21] Time to Clear .....................................II-D-22 Ultimate Constricting Route .......................II-D-23 County Exiting Routes .............................II-D-24 Total Evacuation Time .............................II-D-25 Housing Units, 1991 ...............................II-D-27 Population Estimates, 1991 ........................II-D-28 Motor Vehicle Estimates, 1991 .....................IT-D-29 Public Shelter Capacity, 1991 .....................11-D-30 Population Displacement Ratio, 199] ................II-D-30 Revised Capacities ................................II-D-31 Shelter Satisfactions, 199] .......................II-D-32 Revised Time to Clear, 1991 .......................II-D-32 Ultimate Constricting Route, 1991 .................IT-D-33 Exiting Routes, 1991 ...............................11-D-34 Total Time, 1991 .........................-.................I-D-35 SARASOTA COUNTY PEACETIME EMERGENCY PLAN (HURRICANES) [9J-5.012(2)(e)(i)] HURRICANE VULNERABILITY The hurricane vulnerability of Sarasota County has been analyzed using a numerical storm surge prediction model known as SLOSH, short for Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes. This model is described in detail in the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan, 1981-82 prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council; as welI as A Storm Surge Atlas for Southwest Florida. prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Undated (@ 1983). These reports analyzed some 187 separate storms for their potential impact on Southwest Florida, including Sarasota County. Both reports provide an assessment of methodologies and provide assumptions that can act towards increasing or decreasing forecast flood and wind conditions. fowever, in summary, the following assumptions can be made. (1) Landfalling storms provide the worst flooding potential (2) In general, flooding will be worse south of the eye of the hurricane (3) Wind conditions causing travel to become unsafe will occur well before the eye of the storm makes landfall, and are likely to precede flooding of evacuation routes. (4) Storm landfall prediction cannot be considered an exact science. An approaching storm may strengthen or change course before making landfall, and these changes will decrease or increase rain-flooding and surge potential of the storm.. - The SLOSH model used ten points in Sarasota County for a time- history analysis. These points are depicted on Map 1. The greatest height of stormwaters for each category storm for each point are summarized in Table 1. The storm surge heights are based on the Saffir/Simpson Scale of flooding above mean sea level. .. . ~~~_..�. . ,. >, .~.A. II'-1-- I I TABLE 1 PREDICTED COASTAL STORM SURGES SIMULATED BY SLOSH MODELx LANDFALLING STORMS (If a point is over water, the surge is reported in feet of flooding above msl; if a point is on land, the surge is reported in feet above land at that point.)* I ELEVATION OF POINT STORM CATEGORY Z 3 4 GRID POINT 1 5 Englewood Buchanan Airport Manasota Key South Venice Venice Airport Venice Groves Venice Beach Longboat Key Ringling Causeway Bay Island 12 12 7 14 16 7 1 1 1 1 _ w 4 4 4 8 3 1 11 17 11 12 13 - 2 - 2 6 8 - 3.5 - 6 - 4.6 4 9 3 1 11 16 9 10.6 11 5 7 13 5.8 8.3 7.5 *See Map 1 for grid point locations. The SLOSH model also provided maps of the flooding that may be expected in Sarasota County. The 187 different simulations [from the Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor SLOSH Models have been summarized by flood category, and a zone for each category has been created depicting the maximum extent of flooding resulting from all of the storms of that category. The five zones thus created are depicted on Map 2. I I I Although hurricanes cannot be accurately forecast in regard to behavior, the SLOSH simulations provided insights into the differences in pre-landfalI flooding for landfalling, paralleling and crossing storms. These differences are summarized in Table 2 for storm eye lecation and points of worst impact. . . I .I U Appendix 1 summarizes the pre-eye landfall hazard times that the County may experience. I I I I Recent Storm Hlistory As in the rest of the Southwest Florida Region, Sarasota County has suffered no direct hit from a hurricane since Donna in 1960. However, the County did come under the fringe of Hlurr:icane Elena in 1985. Elena caused some wave erosion along the varrier islands, and flooding of the back bay area along Blue Heron Drive. Most hard hit was the area south of Stickney Point and west of Midnight Pass Road. Building on the affects of Elena, tropical storm Juan caused serious structural damage to shoreline areas of the county (also in 1985). Most of the damage from Juan occurred on the middle portion of Longboat Key, in the II-D-2 U - - Kl- -- - - m A 8 - - m sramm im A STORM HISTORY POINTS 1 ENGLEWOOD 2 'BUCHANAN AIRPORT 3 MANASOTA KEY H 4 -VENICE GROVES H 5 VENICE AIRPORT 1 6 SOUTH VENICE 7 VENICE BEACH 8 LONGBOAT KEY 9 SARASOTA 10 NORTH SIESTA KEY NOTE: FLOOD HEIGHTS AT SHORELINE F, 5 FOOT CONTOUR L O 1 2 3 4 5 MILES SWFRPC, DEC 87- RNC ., MAP 1 SARASOTA COUNTY SLOSH MODEL STORM HISTORY POINTS H H - w~~~~~~~, I 0 I 3? 4? 5 MILES I. MAP2 SWFRPC e7-RNC SARASOTA COUNTY MAXIMUM AREAS'SUBJECT TO FLOODING - - - I 1 I BD aTORM C'AEGqAY - - - - northwestern portion of Sarasota County. Between them, the two storms destroyed about 990 feet of bulkheads, as well as several single-family homes. The more southerly barrier islands in Sarasota County all sustained some damage from Elena and Juan. The most significant damage was the destruction of beachfront roads. Three-hundred feet of road was damaged on Siesta Key by Juan. Elena wrecked about 115 feet of bulkhead on Siesta Key. Along the island's southwest coast, both storms destroyed a total of 200 feet of bulkhead. Elena closed over 2,500 feet of road onCasey Key. After the road was repaired, Juan destroyed it again. In Venice, over 400 feet of seawalls were destroyed by Juan and about 200 feet were wrecked by Elena. Elena destroyed over 1,000 feet of road on Manasota Key, as well as a 150 foot wooden bulkhead. No loss of 3life was sustained in Sarasota County from either storm. Earlier this year, on October 16, 1987, Hurricane Floyd provided what amounted to an evacuation exercise for Sarasota County. Because of Floyd's change of course in the Florida Keys, Sarasota County experienced only heavy rains and strong winds. No evacuations occurred in the County during Juan. However, Elena required the evacuation of 37,000 persons from Category 1 areas. About 6,500 of these people stayed in County shelters. 3 Affected Population The zones depicted on Map 2 encompass large segments of the I County population. For planaing purposes, any remaining population in the county, landward of Zone 5, is placed in Zone 5 to represent a "total evacuation" scenario for any purpose. Each zone has some vulnerability to the threat of hurricane- related tidal- flooding. All zones are likely to experiencc: hurricane-force winds. Category 1 zones are the most vulnerable, and are likely to be affected by every-hurricane. Category 5 zones are the least vulnerable, although the potential for evacuation does exist, and are unlikely to evacuate during a storm event. Each zone is an attempt to mimic the storm-surge coastline of the county. }lowever, these zones are too large to accurately assess the timing and shelter needs of the population. Consequently, in association with the Sarasota County Disaster Preparedness, and the Sarasota-Manatee Area Transportation Service (SMATS), new subzones were created for the County floodprone areas. These subzones were created in accordance with local place names and areas, wherever possible, but they should not be considered to represent specific communities or neighborhoods. Rather the subzones identify areas of the county which are generally I recognized by a particular place-name. - These communities are shown on Map 3 . 7 " II-D-5 SARASOTA DAYFRONT LONG BOAT KEY I SI ESTA KEY I ~. INLAND2 VENICE/OSPRE EV~NANDUATION ZONE - - --rn-rn-- rn rn - rn - -- rn rn~~~NORHPOR - - - - - - m - m m m - TABLE 2 SARASOTA COUNTY - HOUSING UNITS Multi-Fami l Condo St orm Category Hotel- Motel Residential Single-Family Mobile Recreational lIome Vehicle Apartment Zone Duplex Total ]. 1 I:; I 1- 1' 1 1,625 1,539 380 260 1,943 804 3,018 3, 196 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 5,384 6,190 422 1 0 92 305 3,746 Longboat Key Siesta Key Casey Key Manasota Key Myakka Floodplain Englewood Bayfront Venice Osprey Sarasota Bayfront 286 0 0 0 2,313 1,199 226 333 106 797 146 45 109 80 121 506 62 2 0 0 0 2 4 0 1,133 91 26 0 0 29 65 68 8,596 8,619 974 306 4,365 2,207 3,743 7,849 TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 1 12,765 4,357 5 1,910 16,140 70 1,412 36,659 2 Myakka Floodplain 1,902 0 0 131 0 0 73 2,106 2 Inland 8].0 7,701 107 781 3,410 408 348 13,565 TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 2 2,712 7,701 107 912 3,410 408 421 15,671 3. Myakka Floodplain 429 197 0 13 1,195 0 0 1,834 3 North Port 2,647 865 0 35 9 : 0 0 3,556 3 Inlanrd 3,904 2, 181 426 652 5,050 522 521 13,256 ~~-------------- -----e- -------------- ----------------------------- ------------------_---______________ - ---------- - - TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 3 6,980 3,243 426 700 6,254 522 521. 18,646 4:. FLOOD ZONE 4 6,472 1,529 2 1,141 2,652 150 1,130 13,076 - , . . - H H -.d 5:-: FLOOD ZONE 5 31,820 2,403 1,142 1,622 4,737 1,030 213 42,967 . TOTAl, LL ZONES 60,749 19,233 1,682 6,285 33,1C3 2,180 3,697 127,019 I i The first step in estimating Sarasota County population was to estimate the number of dwelling units in the county, and to locate these units in the various subzones. Using information from the County, the City of Sarasota, the City of North Port, and SMATS; as well as information provided by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, it was determined that Sarasota County contains 136,049 dwelling units. This estimate includes single-family homes, duplexes (and multi-plexes) mobile homes, RVs (or travel trailers), apartments, condominiums, hotels and motels. The largest number of dwelling units in the County are located in Category 5 areas (42,967),' .)ut 31,584 dwelling units occur in the Category 1 zone. This information is contained in Table 2, Housing Units. A population estimate is derived from the housing unit estimate. This derivation requires knowledge of two additional factors: persons per household and occupancy rates. For Sarasota County, it has been estimated that there is an average of 2.2 people per household. This assumption is regardless of the type of unit (e.g. duplexes vs. mobile homes). A more detailed analysis was required to determine occupancy/vacancy rates because this may vary between structure types. It is also necessary to be somewhat more accurate withl these rates because some structures are more vulnerable to wind damage than others. Using estimates derived from the survey in Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan, Appendix C, two estimates of seasonal vacancy were prepared, as indicated in Table 3, below. TABLE 3 SEASONAL OCCUPANCY RATES UNIT TYPE JULY NOVEMBER Single=Family 96% 97% Duplex 96% 95% Condominium (Conventional) 51% 64% Mobile Home 43% 75% Travel Trailer 18% 41% Apartment 70% 78% I Motel/Hlotel 54% 63% In 1987, it is estimated that Sarasota, population in July withi.n tihe 5 zones is 203,081, and the population in November is 230,093. Table 4 summarizes this information. The greatest seasonal variance occurs in Hurricane Category Zone 1, which has 53,960 persons in July and 62,540 in November, for an increase of 15.9%. "'~: '.13" ."'....~ ..: ,:.:~/.'.:~..' .....:' '' I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~. .CI.. -..~ ! W TABLE 4 I ~~~~SARASOTA COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION ZONES |I Storm Population Estimate Category Zone July November * 1 Longboat Key 11,384 13,403 * Siesta Key 11,534 13,498 Casey Key 1,533 1,692 Manasota Key 619 . 633 I Myakka Floodplain .6,460 8,150 Englewood Bayfront 3,098 4,006 Venice/Osprey 7,204 7,552 I| ~ Sarasota Bayfront 12,128 13,606 Mobile Homes, not otherwise 14,735 26,059 included in above flood- prone areas (Category 2-S Areas) SUBTOTAL 68,695 88,599 U 2 Myakka Floodplain 4,306 4,385 Inland 15,342 22,009 Mobile Homes, not otherwise 7,408 13,255 included in above flood- prone areas (Category 3-5 Areas) --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW EVACUEES 12,321 13,590 I9 ~ TOTALS 1 - 2 81,016 102,189 3 South Myakka 2,453 2,946 North Port 6,473 7,149 Inland 18,869 22,356 Mobile Homes, not otherwise 4,708 7,520 included in above flood- I prone areas_(Category 4-5 Areas) _ - NEW EVACUEES 25,095 26,716 i TOTALS 1 - 3 106,111 128,905 4 Inland 32,508 23,908 I Mobile Homes, not otherwise 2,725 4,995 included in above flood- prone area (Category 5 Area) I NEW EVACUEES 19,525 21,383 TOTALS 1 - 4 125,636 150,288 I 5 Inland 80,170 84,805 NEW EVACUEES 77,445 79,805 3 TOTALS 1 - 5 203,081 230,093 II-D-9 ! Motor Vehicles The vast majority of evacuating persons will travel by a private motor vehicle. Thus, it is important to estimate the number of vehicles likely to be used in an evacuation. Certain factors for each household must be taken into account in order to derive a county-wide vehicle estimate. How many vehicles does the average Sarasota family own? Will some of these vehicles be left behind? How many drivers feel competent to operate a vehicle under storm conditions? Would families separate themnselves into two or more vehicles? The original survey, as mentioned above, suggested that about 75% of county-based vehicles.would be used in an evacuation. This averages, over the entire region, to 1.1 vehicles per household. | Using these figures, and the vacancy rates already discussed, Sarasota County evacuees would use include 101,545 vehicles in July and 115,047 vehicles in November. The greatest number of vehicles (40,087 - 42,401) are in Category 5 areas, but these are unlikely to evacuate. The greatest number of evacuating vehicles is likely to be in Category 1 zones (26,983 in July and 31,272 in | November). Table 5 summarizes vehicle information for Sarasota County. TABLE 5 SARASOTA COUNTY VEHICLE ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION - BY SEASON RECREATIONAL RECREATIONAL CATEGORY ZONE JULY VEHICLES NOVEMBER VEHICLES 1 Longboat Key 5,692 0 6,701 0 1 Siesta Key 5,768 0 6,749 0 1 Casey Key 765 0 846 0 1 Manasota Key 311 0 317 0 1 Myakka F-loodplain 3,230 0 4,075 0 _-_. 1 Englewood Bayfront 1,550 1 2,004 1 1 Venice/Osprey 3,602 1 3,777 2 1 Sarasota Bayfront 6,065 0 6,803 0 2 Myakka Floodplain 2,153 0 2,192 0 2 Inland 2 7,671 21 11,003 48 3 South Myakka 1,226 0' 1,473 0 3 North Port 3,236 0 3,574 0 I 3 Inland 9,435 84 11,178 192 4 Inland 10,754 1 11,954 1 5 Inland 40,087 226 42,401 515 Shelters Evacuees must have a place to" o. The SWFRPC undertook surveys in 1979 and 1981 to determine evacuees' preferred destinations. II-D-10 These surveys revealed the following information: 24% of those surveyed preferred to go to a public shelter; 34% said they would leave the county; 21% would go to "other" locations (friends, relatives, hotels, etc.); while 21% had not determined where they would go during an evacuation. It must be mentioned that these are declarations before the fact, and that actual destinations might be different. Severity and route of impending storms may also affect destinations, because of pressures placed on roads and facilities by large-scale evacuations. This could have the effect of eliminating or limiting the 21% "don't knows" and/or the 21% "other locations" preferences. Currently, Sarasota County has 30 public shelters, one of which (Sarasota Vocational Center) has been designated a special care facility. Shelter capacity is computed at 20 square feet per person, for a total capacity of 20,095 persons. Table 6 lists the shelters, while Table 7 summarizes shelter space by vulnerability zone. Map 4 depicts shelter locations. TABLE 6 SARASOTA SHELTERS Capacity at 20 sq. ft. per perspn Shelter Address Sarasota Area American Legion Post #30 Ashton Elementary School Ashton Mennonite Church Bahia Vista Mennonite Church Booker School Complex Church of the Incarnation Concordia Lutheran Church First Christian Church Fruitville Elementary School Gocio Elementary School Gulf Gate Elementary School McIntosh Middle School Sahib Temple Saint Wilfred's Episcopal Church Sarasota Christian School Sarasota Family YMCA Sarasota fligh School Sarasota Middle School Sudakoff Conference Center- USF The Tabernacle Tuttle Elementary School VFW Post #3233 'ilkinson Elementary- chool 6th Street Ashton Road Ashton Road Bahia Vista N. Orange Avenue Bee Ridge Road Wood Street S. Washington Blvd. Honore Avenue Gocio Road Lockwood Ridge Road S. McIntosh N. Beneva Road Wilkinson Road Bahia Vista S. Euclid Avenue S. Washington Blvd. S. School Avenue 200 1,050 200 660 1,420 300 200 300 480 1,050 500 1, 950 300 300 400 825 1,010 1,700 N. Tamiami Trail 48 DeSoto Road 300 N. Brink Avenue 900 S. Tuttle Avenue ..240 ........ Wilkinson' Ro'a:"d .... ' .900 . II-D-11 SHELTERS 1, L----2.jIi2 59CBB0tn AeEB \ ,, B UP TO 14 FEET 1, AHERICAN LEBOIONH POST /30 ._ ABOVE MSL 2. ASHTON ELEMENBHTARY SCHOOL 3. ASHTON MENHONITE CHURCH 4'.' BAHIA VISTA HENHONITE CHURCH SR 72 5:' BOOKER SCHOOL COMPLEX 6. CHURCH OF THE IHCARNATION 7. CONCORDIA LUTHERAN CHURCH 8. FIRST CHRISTIAN CIIURCH 9.;. FRUITVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 10. GOCIO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11. GULF OATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 12. MCINTOSH MIDDLE SCHOOL 13. SAHIB TEMBHPLE 14. SAINT NILFRED'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH H 15. SARASOTA CHRISTIAN SCHOOL H 16. SARASOTA FAMILY UMCA 17..- SARASOTA HIGH SCHOOL \ Ut 18, SARASOTA MIDDLE SCHOOL ' . 19g. SUDAKOFF CONFERENCE CBENTER-USF O 20. THE TABERNACLE t) 21, TUTTLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL C � 22". VYW POST #3233 . 23: WILKINSON ELEMENTARY SCIIOOL 4r W VeSDIEH Osersr� r nd Meko is Arc5 'I\. 24. CHRIST UNITED HETIIODIST CiURCH 2 25, TRINITY UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH / 29 26. VENICE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL 27. VENICE UNITSD CHURCII OF CIIRIST 28. VFn 18118 O Enecw_ood and North Port Atef| 29 NORTH PORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL \2CHARLOTTE CO. 30,. SARASOTA VOCATIONAL CENTER .S775 : " O 1 2 3 4 5 MILES "~ I,~c-~t--MAP 4 SWFRPC 87-RNC . SARASOTA COUNTY PUBLIC SHELTER LOCATIONS , TABLE 6 (continued) SARASOTA SHELTERS Capacity at 20 sq. ft. pe pe_rso_n Shelter Address 3 Venice, Ospr�Ey. and Nokomis Area Christ United Methodist Church Center Road Trinity United Presbyterian ~* Church SR 775 Venice Area Middle School Center Road Venice United Church of | ~ Christ Shamrock VFW #8118 E. Venice Avenue 220 220 1,950 220 240 1,580 Englewood and North Port Area North Port Elementary School Glenallen Blvd. COUNTY TOTAL: 29 shelters Special Care Facility* Sarasota Vocational Center CAPACITY: 20,095 persons Beneva Road 700 This facility is available only to citizens requiring medical, transportation, or other special assistance. TABLE 7 PUBLIC SHELTER CAPACITY PERCENT MET JULY NOVEMBER EVACUEES JULY NOVEMBER CATEGORY SPACE | ~Tropical Storm 20,095 25,070 29,226 80.2 68.8 1 _ 20,095 68,695 88,599 29.3 22.7 _ 2 20,095 81,016 102,189 24.8 19.7 3 20,095 106,111 128,905 18.9 15.6 4 20,095 125,636 150,288 16.0 13.4 5 --------------N/A-------------------- 3 For lower category storms, public shelter demand is not the largest means of meeting evacuee shelter needs. Because of the narrowness of the Category 1, 2, and 3 zones on the Sarasota I coast, most evacuees from these types of hurricanes can go inland to friend's/relative's homes, or hotel/motel rooms. Public shelter capacity is most likely to become severely stressed only in storms of Category 3 or greater. However, this statement * assumes that evacuees from other counties (into Sarasota County shelters) are light. If large numbers of non-residents required I sheltering in Sarasota County, then the shelter capacity of the , County might quickly prove inadequate. TTh( only "non-publbic" shelter space which can be accurately 3 assessed is that in hotel/motel rooms. This space can be II-D-13 I I estimated from Table 2. In Sarasota County, there are an estimated 3,697 hotel/motel rooms. The greatest portion (38.2%) of the rooms are located on the shoreline or are in the Category 1 storm surge zone. This leaves 2,285 units available in a Category 1 storm. In a Category 2 storm, 1,864 units are available and in a Category 3 storm, 1,343. In Category 4 storms, only 213 units are available. The 2,285 units, at 100% occupancy, would satisfy only 7.3% of the demand for shelter space in July and 5.7% in November for a Category 1 storm. In Category 2 storms, the availability of commercial hotel/motel space would provide shelter for 5.1% in July and 4.0% in November. In Category 3 storms, this falls to 2.8% in July and 2.3% in November. Category 4 storms less than one-half of one percent would be able to use commercial hotel/ motel space as shelter. In summary, this public and commercial hotel/motel shelter space meets this much of county evacuee needs: I I I I I I = 100% July, 86.0% November 1 = 36.6% July, 28.4% November 2 = 29.9% July; 23.8% November 3 = 21.7% July; 17.9% November 4 = 16.5% July; 13.9% November 5 = N/A -- Tropical Storm Storm Category Storm Category Storm Category Storm Category Storm Category I I Without public or private commercial space available, evacuees have only the options of (a) staying with friends who are in safer areas within the county or (b) leaving the county for areas of the state expected to be less affected by the hurricane. "Friends" can only provide limited shelter space. The shelter capacity for those staying with friends decreases as the ratio of evacuees to those not affected increases. TABLE 8 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT RATIO ___POPULATION ____ ISLACED_ NOT DISPLACED_ __NOT JULY NOVEMBER JULY NOVEMBER _RATIO___ JULY NOVEMBER CATEGORY Tropical Storm 1. 2 3 4 5 25,070 29,226 178,011 200,867 0.1 0.1 68,695 88,599 134,386 141,494 0.5 0.6 81,016 102,189 122,065 127,904 0.7 0.8 106,111 128,905 96,970 101,188 1.1 1.3 125,636 150,288 77,445 79,805 1.6 1.3 -------------------- N/A -------------------------- I Sarasota County is in an enviable position in this regard. Because of the presence of a "ridge" that roughly parallels US Highway 41, a large portion of the population will not be displaced in a Category 1 through 3 hurricane. Only in Category 5 storms does displacement bec6me a' problem. In a Category 5 storm, only 3.9% will find shelter available with friends. II-D-14 I I I � Irrespective of the above displacement figures, there is a shortage of shelter space in the County. The shelter satisfaction within the County is summarized in Table 9 below. TABLE 9 SHELTER SATISFACTION WITHIN THE COUNTY Percent Met Storm Category July November Tropical Storm 100.0 99.0 1 49.6 41.4 2 42.9 36.8 3 33.4 27.9 4 24.6 20.7 5 N/A � U Without being able to meet shelter needs in the County, an outside resource is required. That leaves only alternative (b), leaving the county, as a viable course of action. For this U reason, a knowledge of routes and route capacities is essential. Routes Arterial roadways form the backbone of any hurricane evacuation effort. Sarasota County's roadway system provides many options for evacuees coming from the coast. While there may be some difficulty in evacuating the barrier islands, the County's narrow flood zones lessen the problem of widespread coastal evacuations. County evacuation routes are shown in Map 5. Identification of routes is the first step in assessing the roadway system. The next step is assessing roadway capacities. The capacities of these roadways have been developed based on their characteristics, tied to the assessment methodologies of the Highway CapaciLy Manual, 1985. These capacities are contained irn- Table 10. 3 An important aspect of any route is its condition. Many routes along the shore are low lying. Their propensity to flood due to surge or tidal action causes their reliability to operate as a i route to cease several hours before storm landfall. Appendix 1 depicts these possibilities. In most cases, however, winds, not shoreline flooding, will initially make.roads unsafe for travel. Rainfall flooding, however, may constitute a greater hazard to evacuation route operation than either early shoreline flooding or early winds. This is because roadways may flood and become partially or totally impassible early in an evacuation. Such areas have been documented for different storms and are depicted on Map 6. These are areas that must be passed before the presupposed onset of heavy rains, which is eight hours before eye landfall. This is relevant for Category I storms for most areas o~ Sarasot'a County axdi for 'fewer areas f.r-'CatgOry:'~' gat'i:'.' storms. II-D-15 H H SWFRPC 87-RNC MAP'S SARASOTA COUNTY EVACUATION ROUTES -~~~~~~~ m - m m m - -I I m / / / / / m / / I / / / TABLE 10 EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS SARASOTA COUNTY PER- CENT NO PASSING ZONES MAXIMIJUM IRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) LANE # OF WIDTII LANES I(FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPIT) TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT 50/50 70/30 90/10 IIIGIIWAY TYPE ROUTE 1-75 ManaLee Co. to SR? 68] (Venice Connector) SR 681 (Venice Connector) to Charlotte Co. 6 12 70 Freeway 3,647 2,432 4 1]2 70 Freeway SR 681 (Venice Connector 1-75 to US 41 US 41 Manatee Co. to US 301 JUS 301 to Proctor Rd. Proc.Lor Rd. to SI? 775 SR 775 to Charlotte Co. 4 12 70 Freeway 2,491 4 12 60 6 12 60 4 12 70 4 12 70 Sub. Div. Sub. Div. Sub. Div. Rur. Div. 1,828 2,-742 1, 997 2,317. US 301 Manatee Co. to 17th St. 17th St. to US 41 4 12 70 Sub.Div. 4 12 50 Sub.Div. 2,135 1,687 SR 39 (Toledo Blade Blvd.) 1-75 to Charlotte Co. SR 789 Manatee Co. to St. Armands Key, St. Armands Key to US 41 SR 7S0: (Fruitville Road) US 30]1 to 1-75 San Cnarlos Blvd. to Sllummer]in Rd. 2 12 60 80 1,162 775 965 1,045 2 12 50 4 12 50 l 100 1,535 1,786 768 956 1,036 Sub. Div. 2 t 1.2 60 90 1,248 751 936 1,014 4 12 60 Sub.Div. 1,941 V. TABLE 10 (CONTINUED1 EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS SARASOTA COUNTY PER- CENT NO HIGIWAY PASSING TYPE ZONES MAXIMUM HRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) LANE # OF IWIDTII LANES (FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPtI) TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT 50/50 70/30- 90/10 ROUTE SR 775 US 41 to Charlotte Co. 2 12 60 100 1,325 744 927 1,004 SR 777 (South River Rd.) US 41 to SR 775 SR 72 (Clark Road) US ..41 to 1-75 1-75 to Myakka River Myakka River to Desoto Co. 2 12 60 2 12 60 2 12 60 2 9 60 80 1, 045 1,371 1,343 913 697 770 754 513 868 960 940 639 940 1, 040 1,018 692 90 80 80 SR 758 StiCkney Point Rd. to US 41 2 1,489 12 50 100 745 927 1,005 The Pealc IIour Factor was assumed to be .95 and the Driver Population Factor was assumed to be .75 in ALL cases ,NOTE: I / -': / _ _ _ I - _ / _- _ - _ _ _ mm m - - m mm m mm mm -m AlAtbee Form Rd. H~ Venice Ave. Center Rd. Jacaranda 'L ~~~~~~~~Blvd E "C HAR CO'Fl SR775 ::':. C~~~~~~~g Mo~Mnaso asP" .O_J_j'4M ILES SWFRPC 87-RNC MAP6 ~i I SARASOTA COUNTY ROUTES SUBJECT TO RAINFALL FLOODING ! Clearance Times There are several factors involved in calculating community clearance time. The first is the nature of the threat. Although there are no assurances that the County cannot be struck by Category 4 and 5 storms, the probabilities of this are low. The County does, however, lie subject to Storms of Category 1, 2, and 3 strength in decreasing probability. With each storm of increasing strength, the number of persons and vehicles also increases." Other factors contributing to clearance time are the number of vehicles evacuating and the capacity of roadways to carry evacuees. This translates into a number of hours it will take to move persons past any given point. The final factors are the number and distance of 'stopping" opportunities offered evacuees, and the distance to these opportunities. If stopping opportunities are only ten miles inland, the time is much less for an evacuation than if they are 100 miles distant. These factors compose the evacuation time. For certain communities within the County, times are less than for others. This variation is because pre-landfall flood conditions are not as bad, shelter locations are closer, and better quality evacuation routes are available. Table 11 summarizes pre-landfall flood conditions, Table 12 summarizes shelter distances and options, and Table 13 summarizes the time it takes to clear the most restrictive point on the route for each community for each of the slow, intermediate, and quick responses. TABLE 11 PRE-LANDFALL FLOOD CONDITIONS TIME TO COMMUNITY CATEGORY COASTAL FLOOD RAINFALL WIND Longboat Key 1 6.0 8 5.5 Siesta Key 1 6.0 8 5.5 Casey Key 1 6.0 8 5.5 Myakka Flood- 1 - 8 5.5 plain Inland 1 - 8 5.5 Myakka Flood- 2 8 plain Inland 2 - 8 6.5 I Myakka Flood- 3 - 8 8.0 plain North PorL 3 - 8 8.0 Inland 3 - 8 7.3 II-D-20 TABLE 12 SHELTER DESIGNATIONS AND OPTIONS CATEGORY ZONE PUBLIC SHELTERS NAME ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME 1 Longboat Key 1 Siesta Key 1 Casey Key 1 Myakka Floodplain First Christian Church Sarasota High School Sarasota Middle School Sarasota Family YMCA Concordia Lutheran Church VFW Post #3233 Ashton Mennonite Church Gulf Gate Elementary VFW #8118 Christ United Methodist Church Venice United Church of Church Venice Area Middle School Gulf Gate Elementary Ashton Mennonite Church North Port Elementary Venice Area Middle School Trinity United Presbyterian Church 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 hr. hr. hr. hr. hr. hr. 0.1 hr. 0.2 hr. 0.3 hr. 0.3 hr. 0.3 hr. 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 hr. hr. hr. hr. hr. hr. I Inland 2 Myakka Floodplain 2 Inland All Shelters <0.2 hr. North Port Elementary Trinity United Presbyterian Church Venice Area Middle School 0.1 hr. 0.3 hr. 0.2 hr-. All Shelters (0.2 hr. North Port Elementary Trinity United Presbyterian Venice Area Middle School North Port Elementary 0.1 0.1 0.4 hr. hr. hr. 3 Myakka Floodplain 3 North Port 0.4 hr. <0.2 hr. 3 Inland All Shelters except First Christian Church As this table shows, US 41 ends up being a restricting route for more than one zone. Times for zones feeding into US 41 will thus become cumulative. Such a restricting point is called an ultimate constricting point (see Table L4). Such an 'accumulation of times creates a "greatest time to clear" for eaich category s;torm. For Sarasota County,- however, but-of--county and shelter-' bound vehicles from the south county willbe assumed to have left II-D-21 I I TABLE 13 TIME TC CLEAR �---- --JULY INTER- SLOW MEDIATE QUICK SLOW 7.4 6.0 5.5 8.7 7.7 6.2 5.7 9.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 - 1.4 - - NOVEMBER___ INTER- TO COUNTY CATEGORY ZONE RESTRICTING POINT SR 789 SR 758 Blackburn Pt. Rd. Manasota Key Road US 41 SR 775 MEDIATE 7.0 7.3 1.3 0.4 1.8 2.2 1;9. 3. 7 0.9 6.0 1.7 3.7 3.1 QUICK 6.5 6.7 1.2 0.4 LINE 0.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.3 1 Longboat Key 1 Siesta Key 1 Casey Key l.:Manasota Key 1' Myakka Flood- plain H H I I to 2.7 2.1 4.2 1 - 1 1 Englewood Bayfront Venice/Osprey Sarasota Bayfront Myakka Flood- plain Inland South Myakka plain North Port Inland 2.1 1.7 1.5 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.4 1.2 US 4] US 41 1.8 3.3 2' 2 3 3 3 - 3 . . US 41. 0.9 US 41 SR 777 4.2 1.4 3.4 2.6 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.8 1.3 3.1 1.6 3.4 Road i ! Sumter 1-75 4.2 - ~ . - - -- - US 41 before traffic enters the City of Sarasota. However. even I with such an assumption, US 41 remains the ultimate constricting route. ! TABLE 14 ULTIMATE CONSTRICTING ROUTE TIME CATEGORY CONSTRICTING JULY NOVEMBER ROUTE INTER- INTER- I SLOW MEDIATE QIUICK SLOW MEDIATE QUICK Tropical SR 758 7.7 6.2 5.7 9.1 7.3 6.7 I Storm 1 SR 758 7.7 6.2 5.7 9.1 7.3 6.7 *1 2 US 41 - 8.1 - - 10.0 - 3 US 4 1 - 81 - - 10.0 - The large times required on US-41 for a Category 3 hurricane could perhaps be lessened by a third north-south road through the 1 county. Of course, the possibility exists that improved traffic control during the evacuation would better distribute loadings. If that is the case, the ultimate constricting points become the sum of the routes exiting the County. Table 15 depicts times that may occur, given different routing scenarios. The last factor to be incorporated into calculating the County I clearance time is the response of potential evacuees to an evacuation order. The original 1981-82 Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan discussed this topic on page 125, and concluded 3 that seven hours would be the minimum time needed to clear a zone, because-some evacuees would dawdle more than others. Mr.re.. recent history indicates that sudden or dramatic changes in hurricanes can heighten the evacuees response into a "quick" * evacuation, limited basically by road capacity. Consequently, in evaluating the final criteria that determines a slow, intermediate, or quick evacuation, both slow and intermediate I zones will have a minimum response time of seven hours; "quick" times, however, will be limited only by roadway capacity. All of these factors combine to create a' countywide clearance time. 'I This time will vary depending upon the routes available for out " of county evacuation, the time of season, and whether -'t is a slow, intermediate, or quick response. Table 16 summarizes the contribution to the greatest clearance time for the County for each category storm. The clearance time for the County as a whole for Category 3 I storms will increase if out-of-county evacuation is limited sQlely to 1-75 (north). If more routes are provided, the ,tilje ;. o'.j ffi.y lessen. This, 6fcoure depends upon the icepact on the other' 3 evacuating counties. II-D-23 TABLE 15 COUNTY EXITING ROUTES T rTIMES JULY NOVEMBER CATEGORY TOTAL VEHIC ES LEAVING CO. l.OF TOTAL COUNTY V EH TIC L E S ROIJTES COMBINED CAPACITIES Tropical St ().r.m 1(a ) I(b) 0(J) 146(N) 17, 311 (J) 25, 959(N) o (J) 1 (N) 50.4(J3) 58. 6(N) 1-75 3, 647 4.7 7.1 4.7 US 41 & 1-75 5,475 3.2 H H I k-. I 6. 3 8.7 5.8 2(a) 23, 130(J) 31,780(N) 57.1(J) 62. 2(N) same as 1(a) 2(b) 4.2 same as 1(b) 3(.i) 3 (b) 3 Cc') same as 1(a) 9.7 12.7 8.5 6.5 35, 335(J) 46,470(N) 66. 6(J) 72.1(N) same as 1(b) US 41, US 301, I--75 6.4 4.9 7, 1.62 and - - - - - - m m m m m m m m m m m m m TABLE 16 TOTAL EVACUATION TIME _____ CLEARANCE TIME--__ S L O I INTElR- QUIlCK ME ) DI A T1 E __- SU1MM ARY___ SLOW TNTER-- QUlICK ME DIATE CAT EGORUY DESTINATION (1) WE ATHTER (2) i 7. 7(J) 9.1I(N) 6.2(J) 5.7(J) 7.3(N) 6.7(N) 1. 3 17.0(J) 15.5(J) 18.4(N) 16.6(N) 8 15. 0(J) 16. 0 (N) 2 B .1I(J) Io. 0 (N4) B.1I(J) 10. 0(N) S.1I(J) 10. 0(N) 1. 2 8 17. 3 (J) 19. 2 (N) 17.3(J) 17.3(J) 19.2(N) 19.2(N) .3 B .1I(J) I10. 0(N) . 8.1(J) 8.1(J) 10.0(N) 10.0(N) 1. 5 8 17.6(J) 17.6(J) ]9.5(N) -19.5(N) 17. 6 (J) 19. 5 (N) H- H I'- u I (1) From Table. 12 or 13, whichever is greater. .-(2) From Table.11 ! PART II '- 1991 FORECASTS I Units Population, and Vehicles Part of hurricane preparedness involves understanding and evaluating the growth that is expected in the forthcoming years. This element discusses short ranged growth (4 years) the area may undergo, and the facilities that are expected to be added to serve it. The growth predicted follows a single ,,traight-line forecast technique. Expected increases by category and community for housing, persons, and vehicles for 1991 are depicted in Tables 17, 18, and 19. Table 17 forecasts a total of 154,578 dwelling units for 1991. Table 18 forecasts a total of 247,144 persons in July; and 280,003 in November. Table 19 forecasts a total of 123,578 vehicles in July; and I 140,009 in November. I I I ! I I I I I I II-D-26 I TABLE 17 SARASOTA COUNTY - HIOUSING ESTIMATE FOR 1991 (Based upon 143,545 projected hlousing Units) Ilotel- Motel Storm Cateilory Residential Sing] e-Family Mobile Recreational l[ome Vehicle Zone Apar-tment Condo Duplex Total 1 Longboat Key 1 Siesta Key ] Casey Key 1I Manasota Key .1 Myakka Floodplain II Englewood Bayfront 1 Venice/Osprey 1 Sarasota Bavfront 1,978 1,873 463 316 2,364 978 3,673 3 .RQ 348 N/P N/P N/P 2,815 1,459 275 4n6 N/P* N/P N/P N/P N/P 1 C/ 129 970 178 55 133 97 147 Rl .r 6,552 7,533 514 1 N/P 112 371 4A C 76 2 N/P N/P N/P 2 5 T / 1,379 110 32 N/P N/P 35 79 9, 1.0,462 10,488 1,187 372 5,312 2,684 4,556 q Arr .. ae} X I Uuil rIi)Jv � lr I JZ)J)O TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 1 15,534 5,303 7 2,324 19,641 85 1,717 44,611 2 Myakka Floodplain 2,314 N/P N/P 160 N/P N/P 89 2,563 2 Inland 986 9,372 131 951 4,149 497 424 16,510 TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 2 3,300 9,372 131 1,111 4,149 497 513 19,073 3 South Myakka 523 240 N/P 16 1,455- N/P N/P 2,234 3' North Port 3,221 1,053 N/P 43 11 N/P N/P 4,328 3.: Inland 4,751 2,655 518 794 6,145 635 634 16,132 TOTALS FLOOD ZONE 3 8,495 3,948 518 853 7,611 635 634 22,694 H~~~~~~~~~---- ----- I H H I 4 FLOOD ZONE 4 7,876 1,861 2 1,389 3,227 183 1,375 15,913 -5 FLOOD ZONE 5 38,722 2,924 1,389 1,974 5,765 1,254 259 52,287 ====_===== =_==========_========_==============__==_ =__l======================---- GRAND TOTALS ALL ZONES 73,927 23,408 2,047 7,651 40,393 2,654 4,498 154,478 -,;, * No Pr:~iection .... ~. . . ! TABLE 18 I SARASOTA COUNTY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1991 RECREATIONAL RECREATIONAL CATEGORY ZONE JULY VEHICLE NOVEMBER VEHICLE 1 Longboat Key 13,854 329 16,310 574 Siesta Key 14,037 N/P* 16,426 N/P Casey Key 1,867 N/P 2,059 N/P Manasota Key 753 N/P 770 N/P Myakka Floodplain 7,861 2,663 9,918 4,645 Englewood Bayfront 3,768 1,381 4,875 2,408 Venice/Osprey 8,766 262 9,191 459 Sarasota Bayfront 14,756 384 16,556 669 Subtotal 65,662 76,105 Mobile Homes 2-5 17,936 31,711 --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- -- TOTAL 83,598 107,816 2 Myakka Floodplain 5,239 N/P 5,336 N/P Inland 18,674 8,918 26,783 15,581 NEW EVACUEES 14,995 16,538 TOTAL 1 - 2 98,593 124,354 3 South Myakka 2,990 227 3,586 396 North Port 7,877 996 8,700 1,737 Inland 22,963 2,717 27,206 4,847 NEW EVACUEES 29,890 32,512 TOTAL 1 - 3 128,483 156,866 4 Zone 4 26,177 1,762 29,094 3,072 NEW EVACUEES 24,415 26,022 TOTAL 1 - 4 152,898 182,888 5 Zone 5 97,562 3,316 103,193 6,078 NEW EVACUEES 94,246 97,115 TOTALS 1 - 5 247,144 280,003 * No Projection I RZ; s + i c: * ' * ;e>.t ,;.1 . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! . .r , .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,. . II-D-28 T*q E 19 MOTOR VEHICLi! %,`-'IMATES FOR 1991 Recreational Recreational I Zone Name July Vehicle November Vehicle Longboat Key 6,928 N/P* 8,157 N/P m| ~ SiesLa Key 7,018 N/P 8,212 N/P Casey Key 933 N/P 1,031 N/P Myakka Floodplain 3,930 N/P 385 N/P Englewood Bayfront 1,885 -1 2,437 1 *I~ ~ Venice/Osprey 4,383 1 . 4,596 3 Sarasota Bayfront 7,379 N/P 8,279 N/P |I 2 Myakka Floodplain 2,620 N/P 2,658 N/P Inland 9,337 26 13,393 59 3 South Myakka 1,500 N/P 1,794 N/P North Port 3,938 N/P 4,351 N/P Inland 11,482 103 13,603 234 3 4 Zone 4 13,088 1 14,548 1 5 Zone 5 48,780 275 51,597 626 Additional Facilities I The additional facilities expected can be categorized as "shelters" and "routes." Regretfully, future shelter site and capacity information has not yet been exactly determined. Route 3 :improvements, however, are better known. I The Sarasota County school board expects growth in school facilities to keep up with population growth. Two new elementary schools and a middle school are expected to be built by 1991. In addition, a aumber of existing schools are likely to undergo_ expansion. All planned expansion and new facilities are expected to be in Category 3 zones or further inland. Thus, they will add to shelter facilities in any likely storm scenario. Table 20 shows expected shelter capacities for 1991. However, new shelter growth (10X) does not match forecasted population growth (21%). Consequently, conditions will worsen regarding shelters with the exception of tropical storm (less than 1) conditions, where the increase in shelter space should rouse new * barrier island residents. m II-D-29 I I TABLE 20 1991 PUBLIC SHELTER CAPACITY I EVACUATING POPULATION JULY NOVEMBER % POPULATION SHELTERED JULY NOVEMBER STORM CATEGORY SHELTER SPACE I Tropical Storm 1. 2 3 4 5 22,174 30,511 35,565 72.7 62.4 22,174 83,598 107,816 26.5 20.6 22,174 98,593 124,354 22.5 17.8 22,174 128,483 156,866 17.3 14.1 22,174 152,898 182,88. 14.5 12.1 -------------------- N/A� I I TABLE 21 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT RATIO I STORM CATEGORY DISPLACED JULY NOVEMBER NOT DISPLACED JULY NOVEMBER RATIO JULY NOVEMBER I Tropical Storm 30,511 35,565 216,633 1 83,598 107,816 163,546 2 98,593 124,354 148,551 3 128,483 156,866 118,661 4 152,898 182,888 94,246 5 ----------------------- N/A 244,438 0.1 0.1 172,187 0.5 0.6 155,649 0.7 0.8 123,137 1.1 1.3 97,115 1.6 1.9 I I Route improvements for the next five-year period indicate substantial improvements and expansions will be made to routes leading to 1-75. This will probably speed evacuation, particularly in the South Venice area. Using the Sarasota County Capital Improvements Program (1983) as a guide, the following significant improvements are forecast: (a) Jacaranda - add 2 lanes to existing 2 lanes - Major Arte-rial Venice to Center (b) Manasota Beach - Resurface and widen 4 feet - Collector Bridge to SR 775 (c) Lockwood Ridge - Construct 4 lanes - Major Arterial Myrtle to University Parkway (d) Old Myakka - Resurface and widen 2 feet - Minor Arterial Fruitville Road to North County Line (e) University Parkway - Add 2 lanes to existing 2 lanes - Major Arterial US 301 to 1-75 Whereas the exact capacities of these new improvements cannot be calculated at this time, an estimate can be made. Table 22 provides a revision of the previously provided in Table 10 to represent 1991 conditions. II-D-30 II-D-30 I I I TABLE 22 REVISED CAPACITIES NEW CAPACITY C I OLD APACITY -996 (quick) 877 (quick) new route new route 1,032 (quick) U' I I I U. I, U, ROUTE Jacaranda Boulevard, Venice 2,113 Avenue - Center Road Manasota Beach Road, SR 775 - 1,044 (quick) County Line Lockwood Ridge, Myrtle - 1,607 University Parkway Old Myakka Road, Fruitville - 989 (quick) County line University Parkway, US 301 - 1-75 2,178 Improvements on Lockwood Ridge Road will cause it to connect with Beneva, via Twelfth Street, and thus form a potential evacuation route. Not shown are improvements on 1-75, through Sarasota County, which are likely to increase its capacity to some degree. Assuming that these improvements are in place, new shelter satisfaction capacities (Table 23), time to clear (Table 24), ultimate constricting route (Table 25), exiting route assessments (Table 26), and clearance time ca].culations (Table 27) can be made. TABLE 23 SHELTER SATISFACTION, 1991 PERCENT MET JULY NOVEMBER CATEGORY Tropical Storm 1 2 - 3 4 5 92.5 90.8 46.8 39.3 40.6 34.9 31.8 26.4 23.1 19.4 --- N/A ---- - m Because all of its shelters are located in Category 3 zones for further inland, it is the only county in the Region to show an increase in shelter satisfaction. This is helped by the availability of hotel/motel rooms in the higher storm categories, and the narrowness of the flood areas in most of the county. ' It can be seen that the new routes, described in Table 22, do not affect clearance times directly. However, it should be noted v, that these routes do affect times to the County line. In this regard, the greatest affect is achieved by University Boulevard, and the Lockwood Ridge-Beneva Corridor. I ... .. ,j,, ,. > ......................, j , ............................... ' , ' ^ ' '' . gt t. S>, ................................................................................... > A II-D-31 TABLE 24 TIME TO CLEAR 1.991'- ____JULY NOVEMBER INTER- INTER- SLOW MEDIATE QUICK SLOW MEDIATE QUIICK CATEGORY ZONE 1 Longboat Key RESTRICTING POINT SR 789 7.3 6.7 10.6 8.5 7.9 9.0 :1 ' 1 Siesta Key SR 758 9.4 7.5 6.9 11.] 8.9 8.2 Casey Key 1.2 1.9 1.6 1.5 2.4 Blackburn Pt. Rd. 1.7 1.3 1.7 - - 2.2 2.1 1.8 3.3 -2.7 Myakka Flood- US 41 plain H H Il t1 2.6 1 Engelwood Bayfront 1 Venice/Osprey I Sarasota/ :. Bayfront 2 Myakka Flood- SR 775 2.2 4.1 1.1 - 5.1 .- .a - 4.5 US 41 US 41 1.1 7.3 US 41 US 41 pla .2- Inland .,3 South :3 North in 1.7 : 1.6 2.6 2.1 4.1 : 3.8 5.1 4.5 '1.9 2.2 Myakka Port SR 777 Sumter Road 4.1 5. 1 .a: Inland 1-75 - 3.2 - - 3.8 - *. |X' [ ;,.,: .. % I I : - - . - , - - - - - - - - - -� . ' . ; I1 l: .'. _ .l - .. ll l l I i.l l l l l l 1l L: " \~-~ - - - ~ ~ . 't TABLE 25 m ~~~~ULTIMATE CONSTRICTING ROUTE FOR 1991 JULY NOVEMBER m|~ ~ CONSTRICTING INTER- INTER- CATEGORY ROUTE SLOW MEDIATE QUICK SLOW MEDIATE QUIICK Tropical ~* Storm SR 758 9.4 7.5 6.9 11.1 8.9 8.2 | I 1 SR 758 9.4 7.5 6.9 11.0 8.9 8.2 2 US 41 - 9.8 - - 12.1 - 3 US 41 - 9.8 - - 12.1 - Table 25 shows that the county's ultimate constricting route times for (1991) has increased over current estimated times. A * third north-south road through the county would certainly decrease these times. Such a road, Honore' Avenue, is planned for the 1990's, but is not expected to be in place by 199]. Tables 26 and 27 indicate that both the County exiting route times and the total evacuation times for 1991 can be expected to increase. This can be prevented through more shelters in the I. County. The critical conditions, however, exist primarily for Category 2 and 3 storms, and not so severely for Category 1 storms. II-D-33 TABLE 26 COUNTY EXITING ROUTES T' OTA L VE IC L ES LEAVING CO. % OF TOTAL COUNTY VEHICLES ! COMBINED CAPACITIES TIMES NOVEMBER CATEGORY ROUTES JULY Tropical Storm l(a) 1,044 (J) 1,636(N) 22,237(J) 32,722(N) 7.5 9.2 53.4 60.7 1-75 1-75 US 41 & 1-75 3,647 3,647 5,475 0.3 6.1 4.1 0.4 9.0 6.0 l 1(b) 2(a) 29,282(J) 40,477(N) 59.4 65.1 1-75 3,647 8.0 11.1 2(b) 5. 3 12.U 8.0 US 41 & 1-75 I-75 IJS 41 & 1-75 5,475 3,647 5,475 7.4 15.8 10.5 3(a) 43,812(J) 57,727(N) 68.2 73.6 3(b) 3(c) US 41, US 301 and I-75 7,162 6.1 8.1 -: l / - I I- - - - - - - m - m - m m - - - - - m TABLE 27 TOTAL EVACUATION TIME FOR 1991 .-SUMMARY__ SLOW INTER- QUICK MEDIATE CLEARANCE TIME-__ SLOW INTEPi- QUICK MRD I ATE DESTINATION(.) WEATHER (2) CAT EGORY Trop iical S t Drni 18.4(J) 16.5(J) 20.1(N) 17.9(N) 15. 9(J) 17. 2(N) 8 9.4(J) 7.5(J) 11.1(N) 8.9(N) 6.9(J) 8.2(N) 6.9(J) 8.2(N) 1.0 18.4(J) 16.5(J) 15.9(J) 20.1(N) 17.9(N) 14.2(N) 9.4(J) 11.1(N) 7. 5 (.) 8.9(N) 1.0 8 18. 8(J) 21.1(N) 18. 8() 21.1(N) 1.0 8 18.8(J) 18.8(J) 21.1(N) 21.1(N) 18.8(J) 18.8(J) .21.1.(N) 21.1(N) 9.8(J) 9.8(J) 12.1(N) 12.1(N) 9.8(p) 9.8(J) 1.2.1(N) 12.1(N) 9.8(J) 12.1(N) 9.8(J) 12.1(N) 2 H H I w Ln 1.0 8 3 <1 (2) From Table From Table 25. 12. SARASOTA COUNTY APPENDIX I - PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARDS TIMES The pre-eye landfall hazard times projected by the SLOSH model appear in the following table. The table consists of the estimated times for each selected grid point, by storm category (1-5) and type of storm track (landfalling, parallel and crossing). In all cases, the worst probably times are used. The table is divided into 50 parts, for category 1 through 5 I ;respectively. The first column names the grid point being examined, followed by the projected time, in hours before estimated eye landfall, that tidal flooding would reach that point. This time estimate is followed.by a code "identifying the particular storm track producing this: worst probably (longest) time. These coded storm tracks are fully described in Table 1, giving the track's landfall point and the. area receiving the maximum surge and/or winds. The next column, "Total Duration in Hfours" lists the length of time the grid point is projected to experience one foot or more of flooding in a 24-hour period. U i Following these figures, the next column lists the projected time, in hours before estimated eye landfall, that sustained gale force winds would reach the grid point. Again, this is followed by the coded storm track producing the worst probable (longest) times, and the duration each point is expected to experience the wind force during a 24-hour period. Note that "sustained gale force winds" regers to winds sustained at over 40 mph. In all cases, eye landfall is the reference point used to determine pre- eye landfall hazard times. ! ! I ! ! ! 1 I I APPENDIX ]. PRE-EYE LANDFALL IIAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 1 LANDFALLING TOTAL' DURATION IN HOUR HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS I{OURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(l) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS STORM TRACK Englewood Buchanan Airport Manasota Venice Grove Venice Airport Venice Venice Beach Longboat Key Sarasota Bay Island LANDnFALLING 5.. 5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 (60 (70 (60 (75 (75 (60 (75 (95 (95 (95 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 8.5 8.5 9 8.5 8.5 9 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 I 6 (75 NS) 10 PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 2 TOTALI DURATION STORM IN * TRACK HOURS A HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(l) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS Englewood Buchanan Airport Manasota Venice Grove Venice Airport Venice Venice Beach Longboat Key Sarasota Bay Island 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 (65 (70 (65 (75 (75 (75 (75 (95 (90 (95 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) ?M) NS) NS) NS) I I I I I I I I I I 10. 10 10 10 10.l 10.5 I I (75 NS) 1.5 2.5 (75 (75 (95 (95 (95 0 6.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 2 14 3 3 2.5 (1) Greatest time before landfall - not necessarily for worst case storm; some tracks cause early flooding even though they may not produce highest surge - if more than 1 track produces same time, the one with the worse surge then chosen. (2) Greatest time before landfall - same is true for winds as above for flooding. ! "~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "' .' r.;." :' .... ~~~2~~~~~~~~~~~ . g~i:..; I I LANDFALL,ING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HIAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 3 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATION IN HOURS GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS STORM TRACK Englewood Buchanan Airport Manasota Venice Grove Venice Airport I Venice -Venice Beach Longboat Key Sarasota Bay Island 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8.5 8.5 (60 NS) (60 NS) (70 NS) (70 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (95 NS) (95 NS) (95 NS) 13.5 13.5 13 13 13 13.5 13.5 13.5 14 14 55 .' 3 1.5 7 2 2 2 (75 NS) (75 (75 (95 (95 (95 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 4 16 4 5 4.5 LANDFALLING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 4 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(l) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS Englewood I Buchanan Airport Manasota Venice Grove Venice Airport Venice Venice Beach Longboat Key I Sarasota Bay Island 1.5 1.5 3.5 .5 -1 2 - 7.5 2.5 3 3 (70 (70 (75 (70 (75 (75 (75 (95 (95 (95 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 4 7 6 9.5 .5 5 14.5 7.5 8.5 8 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9 9 9.5 9.5 9.5 (60 NS) (75 NS) (70 NS) (75 NS) (75 NS) (60 NS) (60- Ng4 (95 NS) (95 NS) (95 NS) 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15.5 15.5 15.5 (1) Greatest time before landfall - not necessarily for worst tracks cause early flooding even though they, may not produce more than I track produces same time, the one with the worse case storm; some highest surge - if surge then chosen. (2) Greatest time before landfall - same is true for winds as above for flooding. 3 LANDFALLING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 5 TOTAl DURATIOy' STORM IN N TRACK HOU HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS Englewood Buchanan Airport Manasota Venice Grove .Venice Airport. Venice Venice Beach Longboat Key Sarasota Bay Island 1.5 1 3 .5 -1 1.5 7 3 3.5 3 (65 (60 (75 (65 (75 (75 (75 (95 (95 (95 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 2.5 5.5 5 t.. 2.5 .5 3.5 9.5 5.0 6.0 5.5 9 � 9' 9 9 8.5 8.5 8.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 (65 (75 (65 (75 (60 (65 (70 (95 (95 (95 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 13.5 13.5 14 13.5 14 [ 13.5 14 5.5 I 5.5 5.5 PARALLEL PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 1 TOTAJ DURATIOP' STORM IN TRACK HO HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS Englewood Buchanan Airport Manasota Venice Grove Venice Airport Venice Venice Beach 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 .5 ( 0 S) (15 WS) (15 WS) ( 0 S) ( 0 S) (15 ES) ( o- 8.5 8.51 8.5 8.5 8.5 --4 (15 ES) 3.5 I I I I I (1) Greatest time before landfall - not necessarily for worst case storm; some tracks cause early flooding even though they may not produce highest surge - if more than 1 track produces same time, the one with the worse surge then chosen. (2) Greatest time before landfall - same is true for winds as above for flooding. 4 3 I I PARALLEL PRE-EYE LANDFALL IHAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 2 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FIOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 ( 0 S) (15 Es) ( 0 S) (15 WS) ( 0 S) (15 WS) (15 WS) 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 EngleIwood Buchanan Airport Manasota Venice Grove Venice Airport I Venice Venice Beach -- 4.5 (60 WS) 7.5 PARALLEL PRF-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 3 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS GRID I STORM POINTS HOTRS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(l) TOTAL STOTRZ DURATION TRACK IN HOURS 4.5 4 4 4 3.5 2 2 ( 0 S) ( 0 S) (15 WS) (15 WS) (15 WS) (15 WS) (15 Ws) 13.5 13.5 14 14 13.5 13.5 13.5 Englewood Buchalan Airport Manasota Venice Grove Venice Airport Venice Venice Beach -5 ( 0 S) 1.5 ( 0 S) 4 -4.5 (1) Greatest time before landfall - not necessarily for worst tracks cause early flooding even though they may not produce more than I track produces same time, the one with the worse case sto-rm- some highest surge - if surge then chosen. (2) Greatest time before landfall - same is true for winds as above for flooding. j . .. -': .,.'':' . .......' 5 PARALLEL PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CAI'EGORY 4 TOTAI DURATI( HOURS, HOIURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL DURATION IN IHOURS STORM TRACK STORM TRACK Englewood Buchanan Airport Manasota -5.5 Venice Grove Venice Airport Venice -8.5 Venice Beach -4 PARALLEL - 60 WS ONLY 5 4.5 4.5 4-5 5 5 5 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 (30 wS) WS) WS) WS) ws) WS) wS) 16.5 161 16.5 16.5 171 17 17 ! (30 ws) .5. (30 WS) (60 WS) 1 8 I TOTAL DURATm STORM IN TRACK HOURS PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 5 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS 121 12.5 12.5 12 13 13 1 case st-ro- some highest surge - if I surge then chosen. I Englewood Buchanan Airport Manasota Venice Grove Venice Airport Venice Venice Beach 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 2 2 -4 8 (1) Greatest time before landfall - not necessarily for worst tracks cause early flooding even though they may not produce more than 1 track produces same time, the one with the worse (2) Greatest time before ].andfall - same is true for winds as above for flooding. I I *. � *.. , ' . ? : . ~ ,. >:: � " . y 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a 6m 1 CROSS ING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 1 HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) TOTAI DURATION IN HOURS GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOUILS STORM TRACK I Englewood Buchanan Airport Manasota Venice Grove Venice Airport Venice I Venice Beach 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4 4 4 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 (45 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 10 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 (45 NS) -2 2.5 CROSSING PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 2 TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS HOIRS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- SUSTAINED GALE FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(l) TOTAL STORM DURATION TRACK IN HOURS I Englewood Buchanan Airport Manasota Venice Grove Venice Airport Venice I Venice Beach CROSSING 5.5 5 5 5.5 5 5 4.5 (30 (30 (30 (45 (45 (45 (45 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11 11 11.5 (45 NS) -1..5 8.5 PRE-EYE LANDFALL HAZARD TIMES - CATEGORY 3 - -. TOTAL DURATION STORM IN TRACK HOURS : HOlRS BEFORE TOTAL EYE LANDFALL- STORM DURATION SUSTAINED GALE TRACK IN HOURS FORCE WINDS(2) GRID STORM I POINTS HOURS BEFORE EYE LANDFALL- FLOODING(1) I Englewood I Buchanan A Manasota Venice Gro Venice Air Venice Venice Bea : (1) Ii (2) -~~~~ kirport )ve 7port Lch 13 12 13.5 1_2.5 ' 12.5 13 12.5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.5 (30 (45 (30 (45 (45 (45 (45 NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) NS) (45 NS) 1 . -2.5 -1 (45 NS) . 9 Greatest time before landfall - not necessarily for worst case storm; some tracks cause early flooding even though they may not produce highest surge - if more than 1 track produces same time, the one with the worse surge then chosen. Greatest t imne before landfall - same is- true. for winds as above for floqding. 7 TABLE 2 HURRICANES SIMULATED BY NUMERICAL STORM SURGE PREDICTION MODEL L C O A C T M A E O T T G D Y I 0 I : LANDFALL/EXITING POINT I OR AREA RECEIVING E P O R : CLOSEST APPROACH MAXIMUM SURGE/WINDS 1, E N Y - - - - - - - -_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Venice Beach Venice Beach Venice Beach Venice Beach Venice Beach SL SL SL SL SL S L SL SL SL SL SL SL SL ST SL L 75NS L 75NS L 75NS L 75NS L 75NS L 80NS L 80NS L 80NS L 80NS L 80NS L 85NS L 85NS L 85NS L 85NS L 85NS 1 :Longboat 2 :Longboat 3 :Longboat 4 :Longboat 5 :Longboat 1 :Longboat 2 :Longboat 3 :Longboat 4 :Longboat 5 :Longboat Key Key Key Key Key Key Key Key Key Key I Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay Island Island Island Island Island I I 1 :Anna Maria 2 :Anna Maria 3 :Anna Maria 4 :Anna Maria 5 :Anna Maria Key Key Key Key Key Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay Island Island Island Island Island I I SL L 90NS SL L 90NS SL L 90NS SL L 90NS SL L 9ONS 1 :Tampa Bay 2 :Tampa Bay 3 :Tampa Bay 4 :Tampa Bay 5 :Tampa Bay I :Egmont Key 2 :Egmont Key 3 :Egmont Key 4 :Egmont Key 5 :Egmont Key 1 :Egmont Key 2 :Egmont Key 3 :Egmont Key 4 :Egmont Key 5 :Egmont Key Island Island Island Island Island Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay I I SL L 95NS SL L 95NS SL L 95NS SL L 95NS SL L 95NS SL L KE SL L RE SL L KE SL L KE SL 1. KE Sarasota Sarasota Sarasota Sarasota Sarasota Longboat Key Longboat Key Longboat Key Longboat Key Longboat Key I I I KEY: SL - L - P - NS - WS - SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Landfalling Hurricane Paralleling Hurricane North of Sanibel Island West of Sanibel Island Surges from I I I 8 I TABLE 2 (Continuedl HURRICANES SIMULATED BY NUMERICAL STORM SURGE PREDICTION MODEL L C 0 A C T I I M A E O T T G : LANDFALL/EXITING POINT D Y I O : OR AREA RECEIVING E P O R CLOSEST APPROACH MAXIMUM SURGE/WINDS L E N Y SL P 60WS 1 :60 mi. west of.-Sanibel Venice Beach SL P 60WS 2 :60 mi. west of Sanibel Venice Beach SL P 60WS 3 :60 mi. west of Sanibel Venice Beach SL. P 60WS 4 :60 mi. west of Sanibel Venice Beach. SL P 60WS 5 :60 mi. west of Sanibel Venice Beach SL - SLOSTI (Sea, Lake, -ard ,Overland Surges from Hurricanes (Model) L - Landfalling Hurricane P - Paralleling Hurricane KE - Egmont Key "'. ':.:.~" i.' ~' '',"' ",.".�' ' ;:� ' .'"' . '.'...~'~:~.: "u' '' '.,,"~'): 9 HENDRY COUNTY - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page # Hurricane Vulnerability .............................II-E-l Recent Storm History.................................II-E-4 Affected Population ..................................II-E-4 Motor Vehicles ....................................... II-E-5 Shelters .............................................II-E-6 Routes .............................................. II-E-9 Clearance Times .....................................II-E-13 1991 Forecasts ........................... II-E-16 m, APPENDIX - Hazard Times .............................. LIST OF MAPS Map Page # 1. Hurricane Wind Impact Zones .......................II-E-2 2. Flood and Wind Vulnerability Zones ................II-E-3 3. Red Cross Managed Public Shelter Locations ........II-E-7 4. Evacuation Routes .................................II-E-10 5. Routes Subject to Rainfall Flooding ...............II-E-12 LIST OF TABLES Table Page # 1. Housing Units .....................................II-E-4 2. Population Estimates ..............................II-E-5 3. Vehicle Estimates .................................II-E-6 4. Shelters ..........................................II-E-8 5. Population Displacement Ratio ..................... II-E-8 6. Shelter Satisfaction ..............................II-E-9 7. Evacuation Route Capacity Calculation .............II-E-11 8. Pre-Landfa]l Flood/Wind Conditions ................ II-E-13 9. Shelter Designations Options ...................... II-E-13 10. Time to Clear ..................................... II-E-14 11. Ultimate Constricting Route ....................... II-E-14 12. County Exiting Routes ............................. II-E-15 13. Total Evacuation Time ............................. II-E-15 14. Housing J Units, 1991 ................................II-E-16 15. Population Estimates, 1991 ...................... II-E-16 ]6. Traffic Estimates, 1991 ........................... II-E-17 17. Shelter Satisfactions, 991 ...............1. II-E-18 18. Total Time, 1991 ................ I1-E-18 1<-: . ,5:;' , ,r . .. ; >, _;, HENDRY COUNTY NATURAL DISASTER PLAN (Hurricanes) HURRICANE VULNERABILITY The hurricane vulnerability of Hendry County has been analyzed ; using a numerical storm surge prediction model known as SLOSH, short for Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes. In fact, the SLOSH model was first applied to Lake Okeechobee. This mode] is described in detail in the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan 1981-82, prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning. Council, as well as A Storm Surge Atlas for Southwest Florida, prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Undated, @ 1983). These reports analyzed some 187 separate storms for their potential impact on Southwest Florida. Both reports provide an assessment of methodologies and provide assumptions that can act towards increasing or decreasing forecasted flood and wind conditions. However, in summary, the following assumptions can be made. (1) Landfalling storms provide the worst flooding potential (2) Flooding will be worse south of the eye of the hurricane (3) Wind conditions making roads unsafe for travel will arrive well before the eye of the hurricane, and usually before flood waters inundate evacuation routes (4) Storm landfall prediction is not an exact science. Any approaching storm has the capacity to strengthen or veer, decreasing or increasing the flooding and surge potential of the storm. Hlowever, in the case of Rendry County, the model does not predict any flooding over the dike from Lake Okeechobee unless the lake level is over 18 feet (the preferred control level is IS feet) and only then in a very severe hurricane. The assumption here is that if the lake is approaching 18 feet, the locks can be opened to reduce it to the desired control level of 16 feet. The hurricane problem facing Hlendry County is high winds (See Map 1). This is a problem because mobile homes are required to evacuate in all categories of hurricanes. There are more mobile home/travel trailer units in the County than any other type of dwelling unit: and they contain about 30% of the population. The County has been divided into vulnerability zones based on i population, shelter locations and the transportation network. See Map 2 for the zones. !; '. . � . .], . . ." ., . ' . .~.' !,~ � * *:..� I1I-E- 1 I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N \\ %% \\ \\ \ / I - I I I I I I I I I I * 1 3 1 1 i II k x \ I I / I I II fI I II II I I I // /! // Legend . . . �6t"l'( ! 640 PH SSTANE 4 MILE COUNTY RADIUS - CATEGORY I 40 MPH SUSTAINED WIND LINE 76 - CATEGORY 2 .... 2 HOUR WARNING LINE 98 - CATEGORY 3 SWFRPC 81 - RNC MAAP 1 HENDRY GC.OUNTY :- . HURRICANE WIND IMPACT ZONE II-E-2 - - - - - - m - - - - m - m - - I I ltKEECHOBEE CLEWISTON/BIG CYPRESS. =-- SR 80 H SR 29 H H . I m 0 2 3 4 MILES ISWFRPC-RNC LA BELLE/FELDA .--LI_�_3_Y MAP 2 HENDRY COUNTY FLOOD AND WIND VULNERABILITY ZONES Recent Storm History Hurricane Donna was the last hurricane to affect Southwest Florida to any significant degree. At the time the hurricane hit, the County's population was 8,100, concentrated primarily in LaBelle and Clewiston. Hurricane Floyd provided the area a scare on October 16, 1987. However, it veered due east before the County received any impacts beyond high wind gusts. Affected Population The first element in preparing an estimate of County population is to estimate dwelling units, and dwelling unit types. Using Planning Department information of the County, supplemented by information on RV Parks by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, it is estimated that there are 9,747 dwellings in the county (See Table 1). This estimate includes conventional housing, mobile homes, and transitional housing such as inhabited travel trailers, and hotel and motel units. TABLE 1 HENDRY COUNTY - HOUSING UNITS Recrea- Residential Mobile tional Multi-Family Hotel- Zone Single-Family Home Vehicle Apt. Condo Motel Total LaBelle/ 2,441 1,002 884 44 0 129 4,500 Felda Clewiston/ 2,631 1,574 406 362 80 194 5,247 Big Cypress TOTALS 5,072 2,576 1,290 406 80 323 9,747 Ulsing the housing unit estimate, a population estimate is then | made. Two additional assumptions, however, are needed: persons per household, and vacancy rate. The persons per household was estimated to be a standard 3.0 persons per household, regardless of unit. Whereas this assumption has inaccuracies, the end result probably does not differ significantly from a more detail]ed analysis. More detailed analysis, however, is needed to determine vacancy rates for unit type, since different unit types have different vulnerability to flood or wind hazards. Using a survey estimate used in Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan, Appendix C, two estimates of seasonal vacancy were prepared. These are as follows: I IT- E--4 3 Unit Type Seasonal Occupancy Rates July November Single-Family Unit 0.95 0.96 It ~ Apartment 0.93 0.98 Condominium (Conventional) 0.51 0.64 Mobile fome 0.43 0.75 I| ~ Recreational Vehicle 0.18 0.41 Motel/Hotel 0.54 0.63 Hendry County evacuating population is estimated in 1987 to average 4,987 persons in July and 8,699 'persons at the start of November. This is summarized by community in Table 2. TABLE 2 HENDRY COUNTY EVACUATING POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION ZONES m|~~~ ~~ALL STORM CATEGORIES ZONE ESTIMATE (Mobile Homes/ JULY NOVEMBER I Recreational Vehicles) LaBelle/Felda 2,433 4,244 U| ~ Clewiston/Big Cypress 2,554 4,455 _________________________ TOTALI 4,987 8,699 Motor Vehicles Nearly all of the population affected by an oncoming hurricane will evacuate by private vehicle. The question arises over how many vehicles will b)e used in the evacuation. Issues relevant to this include the number -of vehicles owned, whether owners would d be willing to leave any vehicles behind (since next to the home, vehicles are the most expensive possession), whether a]ll drivers feel confident to operate a vehicle in storm conditions, and whether evacuatingf families wish to be separated in different motor vehicles. Based on surveys, respondents indicated approximately 75% of vehicles available would be used in an evacuation. (HIurricane Evacuation Plan, 1981-82, SWFRPC). This averaged out to 1.1 vehicles per occupied unit. Using this ratio of cars and the occupancy ratio used previously, |I the county potential total of vehicles used in an evacuation in July would be 1,829, and in November would be 3,189. Since the vast majority of liendry County evacuees are mobile home residents, these figures are applicable in all categories of hurricanes. Table 3 summarizes the vehicle generation by each community. TI-E-5 ! ! TABLE 3 HENDRY COUNTY VEHICLE ESTIMATES OF EVACUATION FROM MOBILE HOMESZ/TRAVEL TRAILERS July November Storm # vehicles # vehicles Category Zone evacuating evacuating All LaBelle/Felda 8'92 1,556 Clewiston/Big Cypress 937 1,634 I TOTAL 1,829 3,189 Shelters I Evacuees must have a place to go. The SWFRPC undertook surveys in 1979 and 1981 to determine evacuee preferences. This data is summarized as follows: public shelters (24%), leaving the County (34%), visit friends or go to hotel or stay home or "other" (21M), "don't know" (21%). Those are preference declarations; othier studies indicate there is a significant variation from preference to actual behavior. Additionally, the severity of impending storms may also change decisions, as increased community-wide evacuation needs limit or eliminate the hotel/friends/public shelter/stay home prediction. At this time, the County has nine public shelters, with a | capacity (at 20 square feet per person) of 4,089 persons. These shelters are summarized in Table 4. They are depicted on Map 3. 1 In Hendry County, there are an estimated 323 hotel/motel rooms. Since the county is outside all storm surge zones, theoretically these rooms will always be available. The 323 units (at 100% occupancy) would satisfy 19% of the demand for shelter space in. July and 11% in November in a Category 1 storm. Since the evacuees in Hendry County are from mobile homes, these numbers do not change for the remaining category hurricanes. In summary, the public and commercial hotel/motel shelter space will satisfy 100% of the demand for shelter space in July but only 58% in November in all categories of hurricanes. With an overall shortage of public or private commercial space, evacuees have only the options of (a) staying with friends who are in safer areas within the county or of (b) leaving the county for areas of the state expected to be less affected by the hurricane. I m m m m m m m m m mm m m m m m m m- I LAKE / 5,EE SR80 &-8 4- 33 SR 29 C E - C832 1 C 832 H H I I -,4 SHELTERS h Clewiston Area 1. CLEWISTOH HIGH SCHOOL 2. CLEWISTON MIDDLE SCHOOL 3. CLEWISTON PRIMARY SCHOOL 4. HARLEM COMMUNITY CIVIC AUDITORIUM 5. JOHN B. BOY AUDITORIUM LaBelle Area 6. LABELLE CIVIC CENTER 7. LABELLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 8. LABELLE HIGH SCHOOL 9. LABELLE MIDDLE SCHOOL MAP 3 HENDRY COUNTY RED CROSS MANAGED PUBLIC SHELTER LOCATIONS - C833 _____ C846 TABLE 4 HENDRY COUNTY PUBLIC SHELTERS Capacity at 20 sq. ft. per person Red Cross Managed She] ters Clewiston Area Clewiston High School Clewiston Middle School Clewiston Primary School Harlem Community Civic Auditorium John B. Boy Auditorium LaBelle Area LaBelle Civic Center LaBelle Elementary LaBelle High School LaBelle Middle School TOTAL SHELTERS - 9 Because Hendry County Address I West Osceola Avenue Owen & Margaret Ave. Owen Avenue 2nd Ave. & Carolina Owen Avenue Hickpochee Avenue Devils Garden Road Devils Garden Drive Ft. Thompson Avenue 593 480 245 200 251 500 165 1,205 450 TOTAL CAPACITY - 4,089 persons I is outside the flood surge zone (and, normally only mobile homes are evacuated), there should not be many additional people displaced beyond those who evacuate because of high winds (See Table 5).* I TABLE 5 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT RATIO I _ ____ _________POPULATION ______ DISPLACED NOT DISPLACED RATIO JULY NOVEMBER JULY NOVEMBER JULY NOVEMB� R STORM CATEGORY I I ' I I I All 4,987 8,699 ~2l,204 ~25,249 1:4.3 1:2.9 Thus, persons wishing to seek shelter with friends should not have trouble finding space provided they make timely arrangements. The SWFRPC 1981 Evacuation Plan estimates that 13% of the evacuating population will take this option. This percentage added to the above July/November percentages absorb the remainder of "in county" shelter demand satisfaction. These figures are summarized in Table 6. *Behavioral surveys have shown that under certain circumstances, people who live in "safe" areas and are not ordered to evacuate, will still leave for their own reasons. Therefore, shelter usage and transportation times may be somewhat higher figures than shown. r�~ ', ,tT- . E-8 IT-E-E I I TABLE 6 HENDRY COUNTY SHELTER SPACE SATISFACTION RATEs Storm Evacuees Public Hotel/Motel Stay with Category July November Shelter Space/% Space*/% Friends/% July / Nov. July / Nov. July / Nov. All 4,987 8,699 4,089(J) + 969(J) + 648(J) 4,089(N) 969(N) 1,131(N) 82%(J) + 19%(J) + not needed(J) 47%(N) + 11%(N) + 13%(N) = 100% shelter space met within County in July = 71% shelter space met within,County in November *323 units X 3.0 pph X 100% occupancy Since there are those that have expressed an out-of-county shelter preference and since there is an overall peak season shortage of in-county shelter, a knowledge of evacuation routes and capacities is essential. Routes Arterial roadways form the backbone of any hurricane evacuation effort. Hendry County's roadway system provides a good choice of options for evacuees (See Map 4). Identification of routes is the first step in assessing the roadway system. The next step is assessing roadway capacities. The capacities of these roadways have been developed based on their characteris.tics, tied to the assessment methodologies of the Highway Capacity Manual, 1985. These capacities are contained in Table 7 and show that the roadways (at the 50/50 split) vary from a high hourly capacity at service level D of 2,300 trips for US 27, to a low of 420 trips for CR 78. An important aspect of any route is its condition. Winds and. rainfall flooaing will affect the reliability of the routes. Many routes are low lying. Their propensity to flood due to rainfall causes their reliability to operate as an evacuation route to cease several hours before storm landfall. Whereas, gale winds may precede a hurricane by 5 to 8 hours, rainfa].l flooding may constitute a greater hazard to evacuation route operation than early winds. This is because roadways may flood and become partially or totally impassible early in an evacuation. Such areas have been documented for different storms and are depicted onr Map 5. These are areas that must be passed before the presupposed onset of heavy rains, which is at least eight hours before eye landfall. This is relevant for all categories of storms. la '~~~~~~~~~~~~~.': . . .' .,-8,, AD'SN S; 1;- II-E-9 I LAKE " GLADES CO0. SR 80---- I C 833 - rC 832- -c 832- H H til I - C) xSR 82 I '111'r% .1:.. ,._O 1 2 3 4 MILES % .. I I . . ._WFRPC-RNC -C833- C833 .1 ~~~~~MAP 4 HENDRY COUNTY EvAcUATION ROUTES - m-!mm - -- --m~ -- - mm - -- - - ---- - - - - - -e - - -m- m TABLE 7 EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS HENDRY COUNTY PER'- CENT NO IIIGIIWAY PASSING TYPE ZONES M AXIMUM HIRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) TRAFFIC FLOW SPI, IT 50/50 LANE # OF WIDTHI BIANES (FT. ) DESIGN SP EED (MPrI) R OITIT US 27 Glades Co. to CR 720 CR 720 to Palm Beach Co. SR 80 Lee Co. to LaBelle LaBelle to US 27 2,300 2,049 1,032 1,413 4 12 4 12 2 12 2 12 70 Rur.Div. 70 Sub.Div. 70 -- 100 70 80 2,300 2,049 516 707 H H CI ..SR 82 Lee Co. to Collier Co. 556 420 463 496 586 2 12 2 10 70 80 ,11]2 ...; '840 925 992 1,172 r SR 29 Glades Co. to Collier Co. CR 833 SR 80 to CR 846 CR 846 to Broward Co. CR 846 Collier Co. to CR 832 60 80 2 2 9 9 60 60 80 80 2 10 60 70 CR 832 Wcest SR 29 to CR 833 CR 832 East CR 846 to US 27 CR 78 .:Lee Co. to SR 29 ; 2 10 2 10 2 10 60 70 1,153 1,197 979 577 599 490 60 80 60 90 The Peak Ilour Factor was was assumed to be .75 in NOTE: assumed to be .95 and the Driver Population Factor ALL cases 1AKErC091 ICKE/OE GLADES CO0. I - 6=-- - SRSO - ----- C 78 I r- m 0 z -i C 833 SR 29 I C 832- C 832 -0 1 H H I ,SR 82 COLLIER CO. SWFRPC 87- RNC C 84 6 I C833 MAP5S HENDRY COUNTY ROUTES SUBJECT TO RAINFALL FLOODING - -m -- - - - - ---- m- - ----mmm m Clearance Times There arc several contributing factors towards calculating community clearance time. The first is the nature of the threat. With each storm of increasing strength, the number of persons and vehicles evacuating also increases. The second factor contributing to clearance time is the number of vehicles evacuating and the capacity of roadways to carry evacuees. This translates into a number of hours it will take to move persons past any given point. * The third factor is the volume and distance of "stopping" opportunities offered evacuees, and the distance to these U opportunities. If the total volume of stopping opportunities needed are ten miles inland, the time is much less for an evacuation than if they are 100 miles distant. *E These three factors compose the evacuation time. For certain communities within the County, times are less than for others. This variation is because pre-landfall flood conditions are not I as bad, shelter locations are closer, and there are better quality evacuation routes. Table 8 summarizes pre-landfall flood conditions, Table 9 summarizes shelter distances and options, and m Table 10 summarizes the time it takes to clear the most restrictive point on the route for each community. TABLE 8 PRE-LANDFALL FLOODLWIND CONDITIONS Zone All Storm Category 1. 2 E SIIELTER _______ Time to --- Rainfall/Flood Gale Force Wind 8 8 8 5.5 6.5 8.0 TABLE 9 DESIGNATION OPTIONS Estimated Travel Time (Max.) Shelter Name Category Zone All (Mobile HItomes) All (Mobile Homes) Clewiston/ Big Cypress LaBelle/ Felda Clewiston High School 1.0 hr. Clewiston Middle School Clewiston Primary School Hlarlem Community Civic Auditorium John B. Boy Auditorium LaBelle Civic Center 0.5 LaBelle Elementary LaBelle ligh School Lafelle Miadle' Schoo 'I l .-- I I II -E -.13 TABLE 10 TIME TO CLEAR Time to Vehic]e Load Time County July / Nov. July / Nov. Line Restricting Route Zone Ploint Capacity Category All (Mobile Hlomes) Clewiston/ US 27 Big Cypress 2,049 892/1,556 0.4/0.8 1.3 .5 1 420 937/1,634 All (Mobile Homes) LaBelle/ Felda SR 29 2.2/3.8 Because there are only two evacuation zones and each has its own route and restricting point, zones should not be competing with each other. That being the case, the ultimate constricting point arises due to evacuation from Lee County along SR 80 as can be seen in Table 11. TABLE 11 ULTIMATE CONSTRICTING ROUTE I I I Time July November Constricting Route Category All (Mobile Homes) SR 29/SR 80 from* Lee County/US 27 5.2 7.8 I The greatest County exiting time (see Table 12) will be experienced along SR 80 if a conflict arises from a Lee County Evacuation. This would most likely only happen in a landfa]ling or paralleling storm from the Gulf and not from the Atlantic. Because of the population centers and evacuation routes available in the county, out of county evacuation would probably follow these natural boundaries. LaBelle/Felda would use SR 80, Clewiston/Big Cypress would use US 27. If this scenario in fact occurs, the county exiting route times would be as shown in Table 12. I I I I I I *LaBelle/Fe].da "time to clear" from Table 10 plus 3.0 hours July and 4.0 hours in November for Lee County time to clear. in I >' ' "' : " :::; '. ..:':":~-.-' .- ., ;'- " " ;' " . W :I .: ' ' :' .. . , - " ' ::.;" .. , I" . . " . I ' I' II-E--14 TABLE 12 COUNTY EXITING ROUTES Total. Veh. % of Total Leaving Evacuating Times Category Zone County Vehicles Route Capacity July Nov. *|~~~ ~July/Nov. All LaBelle/ Felda 318/555 34% SR 80 848 0.4 0.7 All Clewiston/ ' Big Cypress 304/529 34- US 27 2,300 0.1 0.2 I The last factor to be incorporated into calculating the County clearance time is the response of potential evacuees to an evacuation order. The original 1981-82 Regional Hurricane I ! Evacuation Plan discussed this topic on page 125, and concluded that seven hours would be the minimum time needed to clear a zone, because some evacuees would dawdle more than others. More recent history indicates that sudden or dramatic changes in hurricanes can heighten the evacuees response into a "quick" evacuation, limited basically by road capacity. Consequently, in evaluating the final criteria that determines a slow, intermediate, or quick evacuation, both slow and intermediate zones will have a minimum response time of seven hours; "quick" U , times, however, will be limited only by roadway capacity. All of these factors combine into creating a countywide clearance time. This time will vary depending upon the routes available for out of county evacuation, the time of season, and whether it is a slow, intermediate, or quick response. Table 13 summarizes the contribution to the greatest clearance time for the County for each category storm. TABLE 13 TOTAL EVACUATION TIMES ~~i~~~~~~~~ ~~~~Summary Route Times (Total Time) Category Destination(l) Weather(2) July Nov. July Nov. All 2.0 8 2.2 3.8 12.2 1,3.8 | (1) From Table 9 or 10, whichever is greater (2) From Table 8 IF ! : - . . . ,. . - t.;.: . ..1 IT-E-.15 PART II - 1991 FORECASTS Part of hurricane preparedness involves anticipating future growth. This element discusses short term growth (4 years) and the facilities that are expected to be in place to serve that growth. Facilities in this sense include transportation (highway) improvements and school construction (since schools often serve as shelters). Since Hiendry County has a relatively small population and historically has shown slow population growth (averaging less than 800 people per year since 1980-), -the growth prediction follows a simple straight line technique. Applied uniformly to dwelling units, population and vehicles., the increases to 1991 are shown in Tables 14, 15, and 16. TABLE 14 HENDRY COUNTY - HOUSING ESTIMATE FOR 1991 (Based on projected Housing Units of 9,794) I Mobile Recreational Home Vehicle Multi-Family__ Apartment Condo Hotel- Motel Total Residential Single-Family I I Zone LaBelle/ Felda C]ewiston/ Big Cypress 2,453 2,644 1,007 1,582 888 409 44 363 0 80 129 4,521 195 5,273 I 2,589 1,297 407 80 324 9, 794 TOTALS 5,097 I TABLE 15 - HENDRY COUNTY - PEAK SEASON POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR 1991 (Based on projected Housing Units of 9,794) I Residential Single-Family Mobile Recreational Home Vehicle Multi-Family__ Apartment Condo Hotel-- Motel Total I I I 'Laleclle/ Fe lda Clewistonr/ Big Cyprcss 7,065 7,615 2,266 3,560 1,092 503 129 1,067 0 139 290 10,812 439 13,322 ].39 729 24,].65 TOTALS 1.4,67 9 5,825 1 ,595 1,197 I A I I [T-E-16 TABLE 15 (continuedl HENDRY COUNTY - OFF PEAK SEASON POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR 1991 (Based on Projected Housing Units of 9,794) Residential Mobile Recreational. Multi-Family Single-Family Home Vehicle Apartment Condo 6,991 1,299 480 123 0 7,535 4,509 221].' 1,035 228 Hotel Motel 166 556 I Total 9,059 14,083 I 'Zone LaBelle/ Felda 1 Clewiston/ Big Cypress I TOTALS 1,157 14,526 5,808 701 228 722 23,142 TABLE 16 HENDRY COUNTY - PEAK SEASON TRAFFIC ESTIMATE FOR 1991 (Based on Projected Housing Units of 9,794) Residential Mobile Recreational Multi-Family __ Single-Family Home Vehicle Apartment Condo 2,590 755 413 47 0 2,792 1,187 168 391 51 Hfotel- Motel Total 106 3,911 161 4,750 m Zone I LaBell.e / I ~Felda Clewiston/ I ;Big Cypress TOTALS 5,382 1,942 438 51 267 8,661 581 HENDRY COUNTY (Based Residential Single-Family 2,563 2,763 - OFF PEAK SEASON TRAFFIC ESTIMATE FOR 1991 on Projected Housing Units of 9,794) Mobile Recreational Multi-Family Home Vehi.cle Apartment Condo 433 160 45 0 680 74 371. 39 Hlotel Motel 61 92 Zone LaBel le/ Felda r'lewiston/ ,.ig Cypress Total 3,262 4,019 TOTALS 5,326 1,113 233 416 39 153 7,281 I"'''" '. . " 'u t' - ,, :- � . , "...' II-E-17 In terms of shelter, there are three new schools forecast for the County along with several additions and improvements to be made to existing schools. Total size and capacity can only be approximated; the best guess estimate is given as a new total capacity in Table 17. TABLE 17 IN-COUNTY SHELTER SATISFACTION PUBLIC IIOTEL/MOTEL STAY W/ STORM EVACUEES SHELTER SPACE/% - SPACE*/% FRIENDS/% CATEGORY JULY/NOV JULY/NOV JULY/NOV. JULY/NOV. m All 6,509 7,420 5,905 + 1,200(J) + not needed(J) 91%(J) + 1,200(N) + not needed(N) 80%(N) 18% (J) I 16% (N) = 100% shelter met in County in July = 100% shelter met in County in November * 400 units X 3.0 pph X 100% It appears that all necessary shelter will be available within the County. However, since there still may be additional voluntary evacuation and people choosing to leave the county, it is necessary to again examine routes and capacities as they will exist in 1991. For the purpose of this study, it is again assumed that up to 30% of all available vehicles might evacuate. The only significant evacuation route improvement to be in place by 1991 is the widening of SR 29 so that lane widths will increase from 10 feet to 12 feet. This will increase capacity from 756 vehicles per hour to 945. The new clearance time is shown in Table 18. TABLE 18 TOTAL EVACUATION TIMES ROUTE TIME SUMMARY CATEGORY DESTINATION WEATHIER JULY NOV. JULY NOV. All 2.0 8 2.2 3.8 12.2 ].3.8 Because the time to leave the county is' longer than the time to shelter, the improvements to SR 29 are marginal in terms of hurricane evacuat.ion. I ! ~~~...:. ..., 0 .. . ",~-; ' .."'. .'.'':'..' '1 ..........."........':.............'........-"'................'::'....................-'".....................' .'( '::'.. .' ':" .''.........':;.:: ,,3 ;'":~ ;; ,,, '-"L ! II-E-18 I GLADES COUNTY - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page # Hurricane Vulnerability ..............................II-F-1 Recent Storm History ................................. II-F-4 Affected Population .................................. IIT-F-4 Motor Vehicles ...................................... II-F-5 Shelters ...................................... II-F-6 Routes ............................................... II-F-9 Clearance Times ...................................... II-F-13 1991 Forecasts ........................ ..............II-F-16 APPENDIX - Hazard Times ............................... 1 LIST OF MAPS Map Page # I. Hurricane Wind Impact Zones ....................... II-F-2 2. Flood and Wind Vulnerability Zones ................II-F-3 3. Red Cross Managed Public Shelter Locations ........II-F-8 4. Evacuation Routes ................................. II-F-10 5. Routes Subject to Hainfall Flooding ............... II-F-ll LIST OF TABLES Table Page # 1. Housing Units ..................................... II-F-4 2. Population Estimates ..............................II-F-5 3. Vehicle Estimates ................................. II-F-6 4. Shelters .......................................... II-F-8 5. Shelter Satisfaction ..............................II-F-9 6. Evacuation Route Capacity Calculation .............II-F-12 7. Pre-Landfall Flood/Wind Conditions ................ II-F--13 8. Shelter Designations Options ...................... II-F-14 9. Time to Clear .....................................IT-F-14 10. County Exiting Routes .............................. II-F-I5 11. Total Evacuation Time .............................II-F-15 12. HIousing Units, 1991 ............................... II-F-16 13. Population Estimates, 1991 ........................ II-F-16 ]4. Traffic Estimates, 1991 ............................ II-F-17 15. Shelter Satisfactions, 1991 .......................II-F-18 16. Total Time, 1991 .................................. II-F-18 * : *S Se: : e~~~~~. ,. ; i~ .. ,; 1'.., : GLADES COUNTY PEACETIME EMERGENCY PLAN (Hurricanes) HURRICANE VULNERABILITY I The hurricane vulnerability of Glades County has been analyzed using a numerical storm surge prediction model known as SLOSH, short for Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes. In I fact, the SLOSII model was first applied:-to Lake Okeechobee. This model is described in detail in the Reiol Hurcn Eauto I Plan, 1981-82, prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council; as well. as A Storm'Surge Atlas for Southwest Florida, prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Undated, @1983). These reports analyzed some 3 187 separate storms for their potential impact on Southwest Florida. Both reports provide an assessment of methodologies and provide assumptions that can act towards increasing or decreasing * forecast flood and wind conditions. However, in summary, the * following assumptions can be made. I (1) Landfalling storms provide the worst flooding potential (2) Flooding will be worse south of the eye of the hurricane (3) Wind conditions making roads unsafe for travel will arrive I ~~well before the eye of the hurricane, and usually before flood waters inundate evacuation routes (4) Storm landfall prediction is not an exact science. Any I ~~approaching storm has the capacity to strengthen or veer, decreasing or increasing the flooding anid surge potential of 3 ~~the storm. However, in the-case of Glades County, the'model does not predLat- Iany flooding over the dike from Lake Okeechobee unless the lake level is over 18 feet (the preferred control level is 16 feot) and only then in a very severe hurricane. The assumption here is I that if the lake is approaching IS feet, the locks can be opened to reduce it to the desired control level of 16 feet. The hurricane problem facingir Glades Coun-ty is high winds (See Map 1). This is a problem because mobile homes are required to I evacuate in all categories of hurricanes. There are more mobile home/travel trailer units in the County than any other type of dwelling unit and they contain almost 50% of the population. The County has been divided into vulnerability zones based on population, shelter locations and the transportation network. * See Map 2 for the zones. II-F-1 U 3\ N N I ', / N I \ I , ! / I/' I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - Legend -- 40 MPH SUSTAINEo 64 MILE COUNTY RADIUS -CATEGORY I WIND LINE 76 -CATEGORY 2 Z HOUR WARNING 2HUWALINE 98 -CATEGORY 3 O"' ';0 SWFRPC 81- RNC 'MAP " GLADES COUNTY HURRICANE WIND IMPACT ZONE II-F-2 Im/mmIiImm/IImmmmIII H H UI I I L: j! B4 MAP 2 GLADES COUNTY FLOOD'AND WIND VULNERABILITY ZONES Recent Storm History Hurricane Donna was the last hurricane to affect Southwest U Florida to any significant degree. At the time the hurricane hit, the County's population was 3,000, concentrated primarily in Moore Haven, Pailmdale and Buckhead Ridge. Hurricane Floyd provided the area a scare on October 16, 1987. However, it veered due east before the County received any impacts beyond high wind gusts. , Affected Population The first element in preparing an estimate of County population is to estimate dwelling units, and dwelling unit types. Using Planning Department and Building and Zoning information, I supplemented by information on RV Parks from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, it is estimated that there are 4,278 dwellings in the county (See Table 1). This estimate includes conventional housing, mobile homes, and transitional housing such as inhabited travel trailers, and hotel and motel units. 5 TABLE 1 GLADES COUNTY - HOUSING UNITS Residential Mobile Home Multi-Family ... Hotel- Zone Single-Family Rec. Vehicle Apartment Condo Motel Total Moore Haven 504 559 61 N/P* 186 1,310 Ortona 189 293 N/P N/P N/P 482 Fisheating Creek 100 154 N/P N/P N/P 254- Lakeport/ Buckhead Ridge 1,093 1,082 22 N/P 35 2,232 TOTALS 1,886 2,088 83 N/P 221 4,2783 *No Projection Using this estimate, a population estimate is then made. Two additional assumptions, however, are needed: persons per household, and vacancy rate. The first was estimated to be a I *standard 2.6 persons per household, regardless of unit' Whereas this assumption has inaccuracies, the end result probably does not differ significantly from a more detailed analysis. More detailed analysis, however, is needed to determine vacancy rates for unit Lype, since different unit types have� different vutnerabi tity to flood or wind 'h'azards'.' -'Using 'a. survey estimate .--.' ! used in Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan, Appendix C, two estimates of seasonal vacancy were prepared. These are as follows: Unit Type Seasonal Occupancy Rates 3|~~~~~~ ~~July November Single-Family Unit 0.95% 0.96% Apartment 0.70 0.78 I| ~ Condominium (Conventional) 0.5.1 0.64 Rec. Vehicle/Mobile Home 0.43 0.75 Hotel/Motel 0.54 0.63 I Since the residents of Glades County will not normally be subject to hurricane surge flooding, the evacuating population will be primarily from mobile homes. (There is some evidence from behavioral studies that other residences will be evacuated by the occupants even though they are in "safe" areas and will probably not be ordered to evacuate.) The mobile home population in Glades County in July is estimated to be about 2,334 and 4,072 in November. Since mobile homes are required to evacuate in all hurricanes, this represents the evacuating population as well. |I~~~~ ~~TABLE 2 GLADES COUNTY EVACUATING POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR EVACUATION ZONES U| , h~~~ALL STORM CATEGORIES ZONE ESTIMATE (Mobile Homes/ JULY NOVEMBER I Recreational Vehicles) E3 ~ Moore Haven 625 1,090 Ortona_ 328 571 3 Fisheating Creek 172 300 Lakeport/Buckhead Ridge 1,210 2,110 UI~~ ~TOTAL 2,334 4,072 Motor Vehicles Nearly all of the population affected by an oncoming hurricane will evacuate by private vehicle. The question arises over how many vehicles will be used in the evacuation. Issues relevant to this include the number of vehicles owned, whether owners would be willing to leave any vehicles behind (since next to the home, vehicles are the most expensive possession), whether all drivers I feel confident to operate a vehicle in- storm conditions, and whether evacuating families wish to be, separated :' .di-ffer~enn,d , :W .: mo'tor vehicles Based' on surveys, respondent's indicated' T T-F-5 ! approximately 75% of available vehicles would be used in an evacuation. (Hurricane Evacuation Plan, 1981-82, SWFRPC). This averaged out to 1.1 vehicles per occupied unit. Using this ratio of cars and the occupancy ratio used previously, the number of county vehicles used in an evacuation in July would be 988, and in November would be 1,723. Table 3 summarizes the I vehicle generation by each community. TABLE 3 GLADES COUNTY VEHICLE ESTIMATES OF EVACUATION FROM MOBILE HOMES/RECREATIONAL VEHICLES July -November Storm # vehicles # vehicles Category Zone evacuating evacuating All Moore Haven 264 461 Ortona 139 242 Fisheating Creek 73 127 Lakeport/ 512 893 Buckhead Ridge TOTAL 988 1,723 TOTAL VEHICLES IN COUNTY 3,154 3,939 __ ~~~~~~~~~~~I Shelters Evacuees must have a place to go. The SWFRPC undertook surveys in 1979 and 1981 to determine evacuee preferences. This data is summarized as follows: public shelters (24%), leaving the Counfy (34-), visit friends or go to hotel or stay home or "other" I (21%), "don't know" (21%). Those are preference declarations; other studies indicate there is a significant variation from preference to actual behavior. Additionally, the severity of impending storms may also change decisions, as increased community-wide evacuation limits or eliminates the hotel/ friends/public shelter/stay home prediction. At this time, the County has twelve public shelters, with a capacity (at 20 square feet per person) of 3,340 persons. These shelters are summarized in Table 4. They are depicted on Map 3. At this writing, the shelters are being re-evaluated and their inventory updated. That information will be included as soon as it is avai]lable. IlT-F6 | I I-F- 6[ TABLE 4 GLADES COUNTY PUBLIC SHELTERS Capacity 20 sq. ft. Address per person Red Cross Managed SheiteL: I .Moore Haven Area American Legion Bldg. Doyle Conner Aud. First Methodist Church I IMoore Haven Elementary Moore Haven High School Washington Park Com- I : munity Complex Baker Highway US 27 W. 3rd St. & Avenue L 8th St. & Avenue K- US 27 between 6th & 8th Washington Park/Gamble Street Not Available 480* Not Available Not Available 2,355 Not Available LaBelle Area I .Muse Fire Station/ Community Center Ortona Fire Station a & Community Center 140 State Route 1 SR 78/Ortona Road 112 Okeechobee Area Buckhead Ridge Com- I munity Center Buckhead Ridge Fire _ . Station Rt. 4 & SR 78 Rt. 4 & SR 78 Not Available Not Available Lakeport Area Lakeport Fire Station CR 74 & Community Center Maple Grove Baptist SR 78 Church TOTAL SHELTERS - 12 Not Available Not Available TOTAL CAPACITY - approx. 3,339 * Planned for Expansion B In Glades County, there are about 221 hotel/motel units. Most of these are located near Lake Okeechobee, but will probably not be subject to hurricane-generated surge flooding. For this reason, all units are considered available regardless of the magnitude of the storm. The 221 units, at 100% occupancy (3 persons per room) would satisfy 89% of the current space demand in July, but only 22% in November. Because the evacuees are almost exclusively mobile home residents who evacuate in all categories of hurricanes, these numbers are applicable for Category I through 5 hurricanes. In summary, public shelter space added to hotel/motel availability will meet 1.00% of the demand in July and 90% in Novembert. Normally, a lack of publi.c and commercial space will leave evacuees with only two options: (a) leave the county for areas expected to be less affected or (b) stay with friends who II-F-7 V. i SHELTERS I MOORE HAVEN HIGH SCHOOL 2 DOYLE CONNOR COMMUNITY CEN. 3 AMERICAN LEGION HALL 4 FIRST METHODIST CHURCH 5 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 6 WATER TREATMENT PLANT 7 ORTONA FIRE DEPARTMENT 8 BUCKHEAD RIDGE COMMUNITY CEN. 9 BUCKHEAD RIDGE FIRE DEPT. 10 LAKEPORT FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH II LAKEPORT COMMUNITY CEN. AND FIRE DEPr. 12 PALMDALE COMMUNITY CEN, 13 MUSE COMMUNITY CEN. 8'9 GLADES COUNTY 10 I~I& LAKE ONEECHOOEE \ 444ti~~~~~~I 2~~~~~~~~~~ 29 . 13 -78 -13 20 15 07 f 0v 80 I H H r ELEVATIONS SOURCE: NOAA 20 [ 15 12 34 5 SWfRPC Miles I j2 S / n, t) - 4 QLUB*Q vo,1rDar7 CLADES Ce GLAIEv Cv. HtENHDRY CO. ISWFR P ' rnc ! i� MAP 3 EMERGENCY SHELTER LOCATIONS _ , -- _, GLA ES ,UN;& _M_ __ __ are in safe areas'of the County and not in mobile homes. Since the County has almost 2,000 site-built homes and apartment buildings, mobile home evacuees should have no trouble finding shelter with friends provided they make arrangements in a timely manner. TABLE 5 GLADES COUNTY SHELTER SPACE SATISFACTION RATEs Storm Evacuees Public Hotel/Motel Stay with Category July November Shelter Space, Space*/% Friends July / Nov. July / Nov. July / Nov. All 2,334 4,072 -3,340 J -3,340 N 100% J 82% N + 575 J + 303 J + 575 N + 529 N + not needed J + not needed J + 14% N + 13N 100% shelter demand met within County (both July and November) *221 units X 2.6 persons/unit Although theoretically there is sufficient space within the County, there are persons who may wish to leave the County, regardless of the reason. Therefore, a knowledge of routes and route capacities is important. Routes Arterial roadways form the backbone of any hurricane evacuation effort. Glades County's roadway system provides a good choice of options for evacuees (depicted on Map 4, "Evacuation Routes"). Identification of routes is the first step in assessing the roadway system. The next step is assessing roadway capacities. The capacities - of these roadways have been developed based on_u their characteristics, tied to the assessment methodologies of the Highway Capacity Manual, 1985. These capacities are contained in Table 6, and show that the roadways (at the 50/50 split) vary from a high hourly capacity at service level D of 2,300 trips for US 27, to a low of 471 trips for CR 721. An important aspect of any route is its condition. Winds and rainfall flooding will affect the reliability of the routes. Rainfall flooding may constitute a greater hazard to evacuation route operation than early winds. This is because roadways may flood and become partially or totally impassible early in an evacuation. Such areas have been documented for different storms and are depicted on Map 5. These are areas that must'be passed before the presupposed onset of heavy rains, which is at least eight hours before eye landfall. This is relevant for all categories of storms. II-F--9 LEGEND - , ARTERIAL COLLECTOR AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC - SR . 788 43 major(through)evac. roIute -4 secondary evac. routes I, I H H I ft I 1- I,$ Sj A tI I� i / lake I.: :* II :� 8786 8,892 SR 720 :1 I -- SR 74 SR ~,; SR720rp-~ a . :S. _ q . i .f -'-e '. , t'. / l . . ~~R I A., I-.r~ I I I 7 a 2 15(I*.9* -. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I II -I I MAP 4 GLADES COUNTY EVACUATION ROUTES -, , -r m - , j- - -I m - - m m m - - - m - m m m - m - m - - 0 1 2 3 4 MILES SR80 " HENDRY CO. I SWFRPC RNC MAP 5 GLADES COUNTY ROUTES SUBJECT TO RAINFALL FLOODING TABLE 6 EVACUATION ROUTE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS GLADES COUNTY PER- CENT NO IGHIIWAY PASSING TYPE ZONES MAXIMJUM IIRLY. FLOW/ FLOW RATE (LOS D) TRAFFIC FLOW SPLIT 50/50 LANE # OF WIDTII LANES (FT.) DESIGN SPEED (MPII) ROUTE IJS 27 Highlands Co. to Moore Hlaven 4 Moore Haven Bridge/ Approaches 2 Moore Haven to Hendry Co. 4 12 70 Rur.Div. 60 -- 70 Rur.Div. 2,300 2,300 1, 369 2,300 12 12 100 1,369 2,300 H H SR,..29 US 27 to Hendry Co. I h SR.?78 Okeechobee Co. to US 27 1,162 1,440 2 12 60 80 581 720 2 12 60 80 CR .720 US 27 Moore llaven to US 27 Clewiston 90 1,046 2 9 60 523 CR 721 SR 78 to Highlands Co. CR 78 . SR 29 to US 27 CR 74 Charlotte Co. to SR 29 941 1,011 1,072 471 506 536 2 2 9 60 9 60 80 80 2 10 60 80 The Peak Hour Faqtor was Factor was assumed to be assumed to be .95 .75 in ALL cases NOTE: and the Driver Population m _ - _ _ _ _ _ _- - - - _ - - Clearance Times There are several factors involved in calculating community clearance time. The first is the nature of the threat. Generally, with each storm of increasing strength, the number of persons and vehicles evacuating also increases. Since Glades evacuees will be from mobile homes, evacuation may not vary with storm intensity; theoretically all evacuees will go in a Category 1 storm. Other factors contributing to clearance time are the number of vehicles evacuating and the capacity b'of roadways to carry evacuees. This translates into the number of hours it will take to move persons past any given point. The final factors are the number of "stopping" opportunities offered evacuees, and the distance to these opportunities. If the majority of stopping opportunities needed are only ten miles inland, the time is much less for an evacuation than if they are 100 miles distant. These factors compose the evacuation time. For certain communities within the County, times are less than for others. This variation is because pre-landfall flood conditions are not as bad, shelter locations are closer, and there are better quality evacuation routes. Table 7 summarizes pre-landfall flood conditions, Table 8 summarizes shelter distances and options, and Table 9 summarizes the time it takes to clear the most restrictive point on the route for each community. TABLE 7 FLOOD/WIND CONDITIONS PRE-LANDFALL Zone All Storm Category 1 2 3 Time to Rainfall/Flood Gale Force Wind 8 5.5 8 6.5 8 8.0 .. s , ~ : .. ...._ ... , . Se;. .;. a : .-:. . : ,, .. ..... .:t :-. ~1~~,. .,-",- -. II-F-!2 I I TABLE 8 SHELTER DESIGNATION OPTIONS Shelter Name Zone Estimated Travel Time (Max.) I Category All (Mobile Homes) American Legion Bldg. Doyle Conner Aud. First Methodist Church Moore Haven Elementary Moore Haven High School Washington. PaFk Com- munity Center .3 hr. Moore Haven I I I Ortona Fire Station All (Mobile Homes) Ortona .25 I I All (Mobile Homes All (Mobile Homes .3 1.0 Fisheating Creek Lakeport/ Buckhead Ridge Muse Fire Station/ Ortona Fire Station Buckhead Ridge/ Buckhead Ridge Fire Station/Moore Haven I Because there are only four evacuation zones and each route and restricting point, zones should only be competing with each other. has its own marginally I TABLE 9 TIME TO CLEAR I Time to County Line m Restricting Point CR 720 Route Capacity Vehicle Load July November Time July November Category Zone All Moore Haven 523 264 : 461 0.o, ' 1.1 0.5 0Q51 All Ortona CR 78 506 139 242 0.3 0.5 All All Fisheating Creek Lakeport/ Buckhead Ridge SR 29 CR 721 581 73 127 0.1 1.1 0.2 1.7 0.8 1 471 512 893 0.5 I Clearly, route constriction becomes a concern when it is unevenly I distributed between different parts of the County. The possibility exists that increased traffic control can better distribute loadings. If that is the case, the ultimate constricting points move to the sum of the routes exiting the County. Table '10 de;picts the times th'a.t 'may .:c-,: 'i ::: . ;.. different routing scenarios. I IT-F-14 TABLE 10 COUNTY EXITING ROUTES Total Vehicles Z of Total Combined Times** Category Leaving County County Vehicles* Routes Capacity July November 3 July Nov. All 381 664 34 US 27 and 1,369 .2* .3** * (mobile CR 721 471 * homes) and SR 78 - 506 2,346 * Even though there is total shelter space available within the County, behavioral surveys have indicated that even people in safe areas, not ordered to evacuate | ~will leave anyway. m ** Therefore, the time to shelter is more restrictive than the time to exit the County. The last factor to be incorporated into calculating the County clearance time is the response of potential evacuees to an evacuation order. The original 1981-82 Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan discussed this topic on page 125, and concluded that seven hours would be the minimum time needed to clear a zone, because some evacuees would dawdle more than others. More recent history indicates that sudden or dramatic changes in I hurricanes can heighten the evacuees response into a "quick" evacuation, limited basically by road capacity. Consequently, in evaluating the final criteria that determines a slow, 2 intermediate, or quick evacuation, both slow and intermediate zones will have a minimum response time of seven hours; "quick" times, however, will be limited only by roadway capacity. All of these factors combine to create a countywide clearance time. This time will_vary depending upon the routes available for o-t' of county evacuation, the time of season, and whether it is a slow, intermediate, or quick response. Because of Glades' position as an inland county and the relatively small number of people evacuating, only the longest time is given to simulate a worst case situation. Table 11 summarizes the contribution to the greatest clearance time for the County for each category storm. TABLE ll TOTAL EVACUATION TIME Total 3* Evacuation vI~~~~~~ ~~~Clearance Time Time Category Destination(l) Weather(2) July November July November | All 1.1 8 1.1 1.7 10.2 10.8 (1) From Table 8 or 9,. whichever is greater 3| (2) From Table 7 3.s~~~~~ ~II-F-15 * The clearance time for the county as a whole will increase if out of county evcuation is forced into a single route. For example under ideal conditions, evacuees could choose between US 27 and SR 78/CR 721. However, if the storm was approaching directly from the east or west, the inclination of people to drive away from the storm could congest one route or the other. This would be compounded by other evacuating counties. PART II - 1991 FORECASTS Part of hurricane preparedness involves anticipating and evaluating near term growth. This element of the study examines population growth to 1991 and the transportation improvements and shelter facilities that are expected to come on line by then. .~~~~ Since the population forecast is relatively'short term (and since Glades' growth has been relatively slow, averaging fewer than 200 people per year since 1980), the growth predicted is a simple straight line increase. This is then applied uniformly to the communities for people, housing and vehicles. The results are depicted in Tables 12, 13, and 14 and are shown for both high and low season. TABLE 12 GLADES COUNTY HOUSING ESTIMATE FOR 1991 (Based on Projected Housing Units of 4,414) Residential Mobile Home/ Multi-Family Hotel- Zone Single-Family Recreational Vehicle Apartment Condo Motel Total Moore Haven 520 577 63 N/P* 192 1,352 Ortona 195 302 N/P N/P N/P 497 Fisheating Creek 103 159 N/P N/P N/P 262 Lakeport/ Buckhead Ridge 1,128 1,116 23 N/P 36 2,303 TOTALS 1,946 2,154 86 N/P 228 4,414 TABLE 13 GLADES COUNTY PEAK SEASON POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR 1991 (Based on Projected Housing Units of 4,414) Residential Mobile Home/ Multi-Family Hotel- Zone Single-Fawily Recreational Vehicle Apartment Condo Motel Total Moore Haven 1],352 855 161 N/P* 290 2,658 Ortona 507 448 N/P N/P N/P 955 Fisheating Creek 269 236 N/P N/P N/P 505 Lakeport/ Buckheai Ridge 2,933 1,654 59 N/P_ _54 4,700 TOTALS 5,061 3,193 220 N/P 344 8,818 * No Projection TABLE 13 (Continued) GLADES COUNTY OFF SEASON POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR 1991 (Based on Projected Housing Units of 4,414) Residential Mobile Home/ Multi-Family Single-Family Recreational Vehicle Apartment Condo 1,352 420 153 N/P* 507 220 N/P N/P ek 268 116 -N/P N/P Hotel- Motel 425 N/P N/P Zone -Moore Haven Ortona Fisheating Cree : Lakeport/ Buckhead Ridge TOTALS Zone Moore Haven Ortona Fisheating Cree Lakeport/ Buckhead Ridge TOTALS Total 2,350 727 384 2,933 5,060 812 1,568 56 N/P 80 3,881 505 7,341 209 N/P TABLE 14 GLADES COUNTY PEAK SEASON VEHICLE ESTIMATE FOR 1991 (Based on Projected Housing Units of 4,414) Residential Mobile Home/ Multi-Family Hot Single-Family Recreational Vehicle Apartment Condo Mot 572 362 68 -N/P* 1 215 189 N/P N/P N, ek 113 100 N/P N/P N, tel- tel 23 /P /P Total 1,125 404 213 1,241 2,141 700 1,351 25 93 N/P N/P 23 1,989 1.46 3,731 GLADES COUNTY OFF SEASON VEHICLE ESTIMATE FOR 1991 (Based on Projected Housing Units of 4,414) lResidential Mobile Home/ Multi-Family HI Single-Family Recreational. Vehicle Apartment Condo M 572 178 65 N/P* I 215 93 N/P N/P ek 113 50 N/P N/P otel- otel 180 N/P. N/P I I I I I Zone Moore Raven Ortona Visheating Cree : Lakeport/ .Buckhead Ridge TOTALS '* No Projecti Total 955 308 163 1,241 2,141 ion N/P 34 1,643 N/P 214 3,109 * --w~-0 " * 4 .5 *..;4 .. :.J 344 665 ' ~ . ... .f 24 89 : , . .. .. I II-F-17 The facilities expected to come on line can be categorized as new routes and improvements to existing routes, and enlarging and improving existing school facilities (shelters are often in public schools). Glades County has no evacuation route improvements that will be in place by 1991, although engineering studies and right of way purchases will be underway in several areas. Likewise, the only school planned for modernization and expansion is Moore Hlaven Junior/Senior High School, but this facility is not currently in use as a shelter. . After renovations are complete, the school will be re-evaluated for use as a shelter. Assuming there will not be significant improvements in place, new ! shelter satisfaction rates (Table 5), times to clear (Table 9), county exiting times (Table 10) and clearance time totals (Table 11) will need to be calculated. The evacuating population (mobile homes) will grow by about 100 people and the number of evacuating vehicles by about 73. Granted, these numbers are small, but with the limited facilities that are and will be available, there will be an impact. Total new shelter satisfaction is given in Table 15 and the new I total clearance time is given in Table 16. TABLE 15 IN-COUNTY SHELTER SATISFACTION, 1991 3 PUBLIC HOTEL/MOTEL STAY W/ EVACUEES SHELTER SPACE/% SPACE/% FRIENDS/% CATEGORY JULY/NOV. JULY/NOV. JULY/NOV. JULY/NOV. All 1,568(J) 3,340(J) + not needed(J) + not needed(J) 3,193(N) 3,340(N) + not needed(N) not needed(N) 100%(J) 100%(N) = 100% shelter met in County for July = 1.00% shelter met in County for November Since all necessary shelter is available within the County, it e must again be assumed that there will be people voluntarily leaving the County and the number of evacuating vehicles could be as high as 30% of all vehicles in the County. TABLE 16 TOTAL EVACUATION TIME TOTAL EVACUATION CLEARANCE TIME TIME CATEGORY DESTINATION WEATHER JULY NOVEMBER JULY NOVEMBER All 1.1 : 8 1.4 2.9 -10.5 12.0 . I I--F-18 PART III- REGIONAL SUMMARY The summary will discuss two aspects of a hurricane evacuation *. that have been discussed before. These are inter-county background traffic, and the guessing effect, if any, that may occur from one county's evacuees moving into another county. Background Trafficg Present and 1991 Since hurricanes are slow-moving phenomena, it may be expected ! that, at least in the initial phases, there will be some traffic moving as usual. Within each county, this has been accounted for on critical road links as the "slow" response, or a 50/50 split * in traffic movement. Greater concern for the storm (or more imperative evacuation orders) will in later stages reduce the I split to 70/30 or 90/10. Some normal movement between counties, however, must be expected. This reflects normal business activities, work trips, and the movement of goods. A "worst" case scenario would have the background trips experienced on a normal day be the background trips for a hurricane evacuation. That being the case, the region experiences an estimated 70,055 trips entering the region (with an equal number departing). This varies from county to county, with Sarasota being the biggest recipient of inter-regional and inter-county travel. Table III-1 depicts this travel for current years and for 1991. TABLE III-1 INTER-COUNTY TRAVEL | E~~~~~~~NTER-COUNTY TRAVEL- TOTAL COUNT 1987* 1991** 10,260 11,659 38,129 45,062 30,558 36,114 33,336 39,396 1,257 1,486 15,532 18,356 15,692 18,545 3,191 3,771 19,580 23,150 COUINTY Sarasota ROUTE LOCATION NOTE*** To/From Manatee To/From Manatee To/From Manatee To/From Manatee To/From DeSoto To/From Charlotte To/From Charlotte To/From Charlotte To/From Charlotte i SR 789 US 41 US 301 1-75 SR 72 1-75 US 41 Pine Street SR 775 N N N N E S S S S Charlotte 1-75 US 41 Pine Street SR 775 SR 31 15,532 15,692 3,191 19,588 2,089 18,356 18,545 3,771 23,150 2,469 N N N N N To/From Sarasota To/From Sarasota To/From Sarasota To/From Sarasota To/From DeSoto -* Projected from 1986 counts by a 5X i%ncrease. I ** Projected from 1986 counts by a 25% increase. I *t* Normally a 50% split in each direction. N/C No Counts TTT-1 I TABLE IZ111 (Continued) INTER-COUNTY TRAVEL TOTAL COUNT 1987* 1991** COUNTY ROUTE LOCATION NOTE**t I US 17 SR 39 Kings Hwy. SR 74 Burnt Store US 41 1-75 SR 31 N N N E S S S S 3,484 N/C N/C N/C N/C 15,223 15,529 2,001 4,117 N/C N/C 'N/C N/C 18,124 18,352 2,365 To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From DeSoto Sarasota DeSoto Glades Co. Lee County Lee County Lee County Lee County I I I 18,124 18,352 2,365 N/C 9,506 3,810 20,931 16,877 Lee US 41 1-75 SR 31 Burnt Store SR 80 SR 82 US 41 1-75 N N N N E E S S 15,223 15,529 2,001 N/C 7,685 3,224 17,582 14,177 To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From Charlotte Charlotte Charlotte Charlotte Hendry Rendry Collier Collier I Collier C 865 US 41 1-75 SR 82 SR 84 US 41 SR 29 3,864 17,582 14,177 3,224 5,255 3,229 2,999 N N N N E E N 4,567 20,931 16,877 3,810 6,210 3,816 3,544 To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From Lee Lee Lee Lee Broward Dade Hendry I I Ifendry Glades SR 29 US 27 SR 80 SR 78 SR 29 US 27 SR 78 US 27 SR 74 US 27 SR 29 S S/E W W N N N N W S S 2,999 13,966 7,685 N/C 1.2,223 9,211 3,384 9,176 N/C 9,211 12,223 3,544 16,505 9,506 N/C 14,446 10, 886 3,999 10,843 N/C 10,886 14,446 To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From To/From Collier Palm Beac4 Lee Lee Glades Glades Okeechobee Highlands Charlotte Hendry Hendry I * Projected from 1986 counts by a 5% increase. ** Projected from *** Normally a 50% N/C No counts. 1986 counts by a 25% increase. split in each direction. Using this information, it is possible t.o hypothicate -the "in-, out" and "through" traffic the' region may experience. This is possible through summarizing the traffic entering by direction and comparing the differences. Once compared, the "low" point in traffic counts can be considered "through trip equivalents" and the remainder represent destination satisfaction. Table 111-2 presents this estimate for the Region as a whole. TABLE 111-2 TRIP DESTINATION TRIPS* GENERATED OR TERMINATED THROUGH 1987 1991. 1.987 1991 TOTAL TRIPS 1987 1991 COUNTY DIRECTION 132,231 1,486 63,882 Sarasota N E S 112,281 1,257 53,995 29-,772 -34,948 70,408 - - N/C - - 38,841 - - TOTAL Charlotte 26,997 31,912 N W S 59,576 N/C 32,753 TOTAL -- 13,411 15,783 16,376 19,420 38,841 - - 13,316 - 37,808 - - - - -- 5,952 7,175 15,880 18,904 Lee N E S 32,753 10, 909 31,759 TOTAL Collier N W E 38,622 3,224 8,482 45,919 3,810 10,026 TOTAL -- 16,681 19, 852 4,242 5,013 6,983 8,253' Hendry N W E S 21.,434 7,685 13,966 2,999 25,332 9,506 16,505 3,544 TOTALT Glades -- 9,706 10,939 12,560 N/C 21,434 14,842 - - N/C - 25,332 - - -- 4,437 4,745 N W S TOTAL 6,280 7,421 * Taking only 50% of trips, to be presumed as entering one side and exiting the other; or matched by an equivalent number of out trips. N/C No Counts This distribution is visually depicted in--Map III-i. �::'~~~i- '. . .: .::~ -. -' ,, . ...........................-......................... . -- ., .. ... ;.: III-3 102023 120572 1257 1486 SARASOTA 34-87 20eg A 176 15532 ~~~~24-69117 1.5r,92 55 32Ci 447 10843 18545 1.5 26921i CHARLOTTE GLADES fAft I 22,239211' '14446 t�- 1~~~~~~~39szi0 9506 Qr LEE I 7381oS85 2999 HENDRY r'- I~~~~ 3562. 3 --.---�------------ 15223 1987 F'IP VLUMES 18124 1991 TRIP VLUMES 5255 COLLIER o I 0 4 8 16 (ILES 3229 MAP Ill- ... ..:... INTERCOUNTY TRAVEL, 1987, 1991 C\ c_ I� Inter-county Loadings As stated previously, a hurricane is a regional phenomenon. It is unlikely that an evacuation order will be needed for only one county, or, for that matter, only one region. Evacuees going to other parts of the State or out-of-state will pass through other counties undergoing or preparing to undergo an evacuation. This situation was initially discussed in the 1981-82 Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan for a worse case scenario. The purpose of this section is to provide a greater variety of possible incidents, so that local and state Emergency Management Officials can use the information for a better understanding of inter- county impacts. The basic information used in this analysis will be the routes, the route capacities, and the total vehicle loadings, and the time it takes to exit the separate counties. This will be then modified for "in county" congestion points for critical roadways (commonly 1-75, US 41, US 27, SR 29, among others) which will be used in multi-county evacuations. The usual direction for 5 :evacuation is northerly, although easterly routes will also be examined. Overall, the greater the hurricane, the greater the regional evacuation need. Similarly, the more counties affected, the greater the evacuation need. This is depicted in Table 111-3, as total vehicle estimates. Also provided is an estimate of "background" loadings, which remains the same, regardless of storm category. |3~~~~ ~~TABLE 111-3 MULTI-COUNTY VEHICLE LOADINGS (JULYI E STORM COUIJNTY CATEGORY COLLIER LEE CHARLOTTE SARASOTA HENDRY GLADES 1 26,729 48,750 16,931 17,311 622 351 2 39,066 86,743 25,387 23,130 622 38f I ~3 58,]92 109,155 37,529 35,335 622 381 (NOVEMBER) 1 34,721 64,672 19,520 25,959 1,084 664 | ~2 47,556 111,549 26,852 31,780 1,084 664 I 3 68,072 127,218 39,730 46,470 1,084 664 Background All Cate- 4,242 15,880 16,376 26,997 6,983 6,280 gories |I ~~i ,..j!, j.~~i: ,.-. 1 111-5 ! These loadings indicate that there should be as few artificial restrictions on inter-county roadways as possible. For example, US 41 is an important inter-county roadways, yet it is also for each coastal county a locally important road for movement of evacuees within the county. Consequently, it is necessary to analyze specific inter-county routes and combination of routes to determine where congestion may occur, and if it will occur due to either reductions in design capacity or to overload by internal traffic. Map III-2 depicts the critical inter-county routes and their capacities for 1987 (slow response) only. I These capacities enable assessments to be made regarding inter- county loadings. This will be expressed in compact hours for simplicity sake. Behavior in actual loading wil] differ, but will not affect overall times. (For example, 1-75 may be able to take 2,000 cars per hour; Collier County may actually only load 1,000 cars per hour, with Lee County then making up the difference). Using this approach, the roadway capacities "exiting" each county (depicted in Map III-2 as one-way volumes) combined with the vehicle loads in Table III-3 give traffic hour equivalents. These are depicted in Table III-4 for all routes. TABLE III-4 SINGLE-COUNTY LOADING TIMES (JULY) STORM CATEGORY COUNTY 1 2 3 Collier (4.5) 3.3 (6.6) 4.8 (9.8) 7.1 Lee 7.5 13.7 17.2 Charlotte 2.6 3.9 5.7 Sarasota 3.2 4.2 4.9 Hendry 0.4 0.4 0.4 G]ades 0.2 0.2 0.2 (NOVEMBER) Collier (5.9) 4.2 (8.0) 5.8 (11.5) 8.3 Lee 9.8 17.2 19.6 Charlotte 3.0 4.1 6.0 Sarasota 4.7 5.8 6.5 Hendry 0.7 0.7 0.7 Glades 0.3 0.3 0.3 NOTE: Co]lier (US 41N,E; 1-75 N; SR 84 E; SR 29 N) Lee (US 41 N; 1-75 N; SR 31 N; SR 80 E) Charlotte (SR 775 N; Pine N; US 41 W; 1-75 N; US 17 N; SR 74 E) Sarasota (1-75; US 41; US 301 for Category 3) Hiendry (US 27 N & E; SR 29 N) Glades (US 27; SR 78) ( ) reflects roads not used due to a crossing storm. :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' " * : ': .. .' .' ' " " '- : :'" ."' %.............?.?. .... :.- ,......,:.;.... "''e ..... ' '-:'5..:,','4.'.:.; :.' ;, ', :. III-6 ! CRITICAL REGIONAL LINKS ------ CRITICAL INTERCOUNTY LINKS I I I i: I : II I I MAP 111-2 ROUTE LO-ADINGS III-7 Crossing hurricanes from the east, however, negates counties' abilities to move traffic easterly. It may also affect County abilities to move traffic north, should the storm be crossing above some affected communities. An attempt to assess this is made through eliminating US 41 (E), 1-75/SR 84 (E), and US 27 (E) as routes. Table III-4 reflects the changes this would have by the numbers in parenthesis. As can be seen in the individual county tables, with all routes open, single county loading times are not excessive. Multi- county loading times, however, will climb. This is depicted in Table III-5, for different scenari'os,.,, with all counties evacuating according to the same category storm. TABLE 11I-5 MULTI-COUNTY LOADING TIMES I I I 3 1 COUNTY COMBINATION STORM CATEGORY 2 1 I (27.0) (31.2) (27.6) (32.2) (32.7) (36.1) (33.3) (37.1) (37.6) (43.6) C/L C/L/G/H C/L/CH C/L/CH/ G/H/ C/L/CH/S C/L/CH/ S/G/HR L/CH/S L./CH/S/G/H CH/S CH/S/C/H (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) 10.8 14.0 11.4 15.0 12.4 17.0 13.0 18.0 16.2 22.7 (12.0) (15.7) (12.6) (16.7) (13.6) (18.7) (14.2) (19.7) (17.4) (24.3) (J) (N) (3) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) 18.5 (19.3) 23.0 (25.2) 19.1 (19.9) 24.0 (26.2) 22.4 (24.2) 27.1 (29.3) 23.0 (24.8) 28.1 (30.3) 26.6 (28.4) 32.9 (35.1) 27.2 (29.0) 33.9 (36.1) 21.8 27.1 22.6 28.1 8.1 9.9 8.7 10.9 (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) 24.3 27.9 24.9 28.9 30.0 33.9 30.6 34.9 34.9 40.4 I I I 16.8 (18.0) 23.7 (25.3) 13.5 19.5 14.1 20.5 5.8 7.7 6.4 8.7 35.5 (38.2) 41.4 (44.6) 27.8 32.1 - - 28.4 33.1 10.6 12.5 12.2 13.5 I I I As the table demonstrates, a even crossing and closing worse case Category 1 storm in July, I I easterly routes, is likely to be accommodated with a maximum 18.0 hour inter-county time. However, a November Category 3 storm has extremely high times for evacuation, 41.4 hours, with a crossing 3 storm - very unlikely condition - requiring 44.6 hours. The appropriate storm surge tables demonstrate that a Category 4 or 5 storm winds are needed to create Category 3 storm flooding; consequently, it may be assumed that landfalling or paralleling time (44.4 ho'urs) is the worse case scenario. Regretfully, ,this time also cannot be accommodated by any foreseeable Community or state'action. I i I III-8 I What is useful to note is that neither Glades nor Hendry Counties provide traffic bottleneck for evacuation. In both cases, there is the capacity to move more traffic out of the county than there is traffic entering the county. Consequently, other than traffic I control at the intersection of SR 80 and 29, no other action is needed. This is not the case for the coastal counties of Lee and Charlotte. Both counties are generating traffic to such an extent that intra-regional travel times on US 41 will be increased. * One factor that is difficult to assess is the impact of background traffic. Given that a hurricane is known to be approaching, it is likely that normal intercounty and interregional traffic will not occur. It must be assumed, however, that there will be some background traffic. Consequently, the "through" trip depicted in Table III-2 probably * constitute the worse case conditions. Contrary to evacuation traffic, however, this travel is not compressible into a single * loading number expressed in hours. Instead, it must be 3 considered a factor absorbing a portion of the loading times. Therefore, if the through trips is assumed to be distributed through a twelve hour travel day, a factor can be calculated as a percentage of road capacity for twelve hours that can be used to factor up the evacuation stream. For example, if roadway capacity for several county roads was 5,000 trips per hour, the twelve hour capacity is 60,000 trips. If background traffic was 6,000 trips per day, only 54,000 trips remain for evacuation. This expressed as a factor of 1.1. Table III-6 represents the multi-county loading times from Table III-5, factored to represent the background traffic from Table III-2, and the roadway capacities from Map III-2. TABLE III-6 MULTI-COUNTY LOADING TIMES WITH BACKGROUND TRAFFIC COUNTY COMBINATION BACKGROUND FACTOR CATEGORY 2 I 3 C/L C/L/G/HI C/L/CII C/L/C1{/G/H C/L/C1{/S C/L/CHI/S/G/H 1.25 (J) 13.5 (15.0) (N) 17.5 (19.6) (J) 14.3 (15.8) (N) 18.8 (20.9) 1.25 (J) 15.5 (17.0) (N) 21.3 (23.4) (J) 16.3 (17.8) (N) 22.5 (24.6) 1.3 (J) 21.1 (22.6) (N) 29.5 (31.6) (J) 21.8 (23.4) : (N) 30.8 (32.9) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) 23.1 (24.1) (J) 30.4 (33.8) 28.8 (31.5) (N) 34.9 (39.0) 23.9 (24.9) (J) 31.1 (34.5) 30.0 (32.8) (N) 36.1 (40.3) 28.0 (30.2) (J) 37.5 (40.9) 33.9 (36.6) (N) 42.4 (45.1) 28.8 (31.0) (J) 38.2 (41.6) 35.1 (37.9) (N) 43.6 (46.4) 34.6 (36.9) (J) 45.4 (48.9) 42.8 (45.6) (N) 52.5 (56.7) 35.4 (37.7) (J) 46.2..(49.7) 44.1 (4.6.9)- (N) 53.8{58.0) ITI-9 TABLE III-6 (Continuedl MULTI-COUNTY LOADING TIMES WITH BACKGROUND TRAFFIC COUNTY BACKGROUND COMBINATION FACTOR CATEGORY 1 2 3 L/CH/S 1.3 (J) 17.6 (J) 28.3 (J) 36.1 (N) 25.4 -(N) 35.2 (N) 41.7 L/CIa/S/G/H (J) 18.3 (J) 29.4 (J) 36.9 (N) 26.7 (N).. 36.5 (N) 43.0 CH/S 1.3 (J) 7.5 (J) 10.5 (J) 13.8 (N) 10.0 (N) 12.5 (N) 16.3 C1I/S/G/H (J) 8.3 (J) 11.3 (J) 15.9 (N) 11.3 (N) 14.2 (N) 17.6 U As the table demonstrates, background traffic can even further hinder the success of a multi-county evacuation. A category 3 time of 53.8 hours cannot be expected to be a success, but this 3 is suspected without background traffic; what was not expected is that a Category I landfalling six-county scenario has a 30.8 hour time for November; this time is also too lengthy to expect that an evacuation will be successful. Yet, without more local public and private shelters, this time is needed. Consequently, more work is needed to keep as many evacuees in their home county as is possible. Chapter IV (Critiques and Elaborations) provides alternatives that can reduce these times. These include more public shelters, more staged evacuations (tropical storm or barrier island scenarios), and more on-site preparedness activities. In addition to these activities, the Council will undertake 3 community-specific assessments from local (or state) requests to. determine other activities to reduce inter-county evacuatiin - times and to improve local preparedness. I ! I I I III-10 | 3 PART IV. CRITIQUE AND ELABORATIONS This section examines alternatives to certain approaches taken in Parts II (Counties) and III (Regional Summary) and the impacts these alternatives would have. This section also provides assumptions on critical actions that local and other governmental U i agencies should undertake to improve evacuation times. Behavior - Destinations Change | Part I summarizes other area's behavioral studies regarding destination desires i.e., public shelter, friend-relative, hotel, and out-of-county. Part II, however,. based the destination desires on local capacities to provide public or private sheltering. This section assesses the regional impacts that are mitigated should each County satisfy the sheltering needs of 66% I of its evacuating population. This would include sheltering by m* public shelters, private shelters, friends, relatives, and rental shelter outside of the hurricane flood zone. I 0 Should each coastal county keep within its 66% of evacuees, the major impact will be a reduction of vehicle loading on interregional roadways, and thus a reduction of loadings in counties having evacuees pass through to other destinations. The I reduction in out-of-county vehicle loadings is depicted in Table IV-l, m TABLE IV-1 REVISED LOADINGS. 34% Evacuees Leaving County | COUNTY CATEGORY ORIGINAL LOADINGS REVISED LOADINGS JULY NOVEMBER JULY NOVEMBER | ~Collier 1 26,729 34,721 12,466 15,292 *9~~ ~2 39,066 47,550 15,535 18,330 3 58,192 68,072 21,116 24,701 | Lee 1 48,750 64,672 28,927 34,303 2 86,743 111,549 37,618 46,650 3 109,1.55 127,218 41,054 47,272 U Charlotte 1 16,931 19,520 8,579 9,342 2 25,387 26,852 10,203 10,703 3 37,529 39,730 13,361 14,086 Sarasota 1 17,311 25,959 11,678 15,061 !5~ ~ 2 23,130 31,780 13,773 17,372 I 3 35,335 46,470 18,039 21,913 This reduction has a positive impact on intercounty evacuation E times. This is depicted in Table IV-2, which is a revision of Table III-4, to reflect reduced single-county loading times. It is; also depicted in Table IV.-3, Which' is"a revision of Table III-' 5, which reflects reduced multi-county traffic loading times. 3:~~~~~~~I V-1 TABLE IV-2 REVISED SINGLE-COUNTY LOADING TIMES STORM CATEGORY 2 COUNTY 1 3 Collier (J) 1.5 (2.1) (N) 1.9 (2.6) (J) 1.9 (2. 6) (N) 2.2 (3.1) (J) 2. 6 (3.6) (N) 3.0 (4.2) Lee (Quick) Charlotte Sarasota (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) (N) (J) 5.8 (N) 7.2 (J) (N) (J) (N) 4.5 5.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.8 7. 3 7.3 (J) (N) 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.1 I (J) 2.5 (N) 3.2 (J) (N) 3.3 4.0 I Hendry Glades (J) (N) 0.4 0.7 (J) 0.4 (N) 0.7 (J) (N) 0.4 0.7 I (J) 0.2 (N) 0. 3 (J) 0. 2 (N) 0.3 (J) (N) 0.2 0. 3 I Parenthesis denotes the time if eastern or southern "tcrossing" storm. evacuation routes are closed due to a I TABLE IV-3 REVISED MULTI-COUNTY LOADING TIMES I COUNTY COMBINATION STORM CATEGORY 2 1 3 I C/L (J) (N) C/L/G/H (J) (N) C/L/CU (J) (N) C/L/CII/G/H (3) (N) C/L/CI/S (J) (N) C/L/CI{/S/ (J) G/H (N) L/CII/S (J) (N) L/CII/S/G/I1 (J) (N) CII/S (J) (N) C.I/S/c/I. (J) (N) 6.0 7.1 6.6 8. 1 7.3 8.5 7.9 9.5 9.4 11.3 10.0 12.3 ( 6.6) ( 7.9) ( 7.2) ( 8.9) ( 7.9) ( 9.3) ( 8.5) (10.3) (10.0) (12.1) (10.6) (13.1) 7.7 9.4 8.3 10.4 9.3 11.0 9.9 12.0 11.8 14.2 12.4 15. 2 ( 8.3) (10.3) ( 8.9) (11.3) ( 9-9) (11.9) (10.5) (1]2.9) (12.4) (15.1) (13.0) (16.1) 8.9 ( 9.9) 10.3 (11.5) 9.5 (10.5) 11.3 (12.5) 11.9 (12.9) 12.4 (13.6) 12.5 (13.5) 13.4 (14.6) 15.2 (16.2) 16.4 (17.6) 15.8 (16.8) 17.4 (18.6) 11.6 13.4 12.2 14.4 5.3 6.1 . 5.9 ._ 7.2 I I I I 7.9 9-4 8.5 10.4 3.4 4.2 4.0 : 5.2 9.9 12.0 10.5 13.0 4.1 4.8 4.7 5. 8 - I I I IV-2 The positive benefit the reduction in loadings has is that multi- county evacuation becomes feasible. This is true even if background factors are considered, increasing time by 30%. It should be noted that background factors can be reduced through a public policy limiting "casual" traffic entering counties ordered to undergo an evacuation. An example of this policy would be that, if Lee and Collier Counties had to evacuate, Miami to Tampa traffic (and vice versa) would be blocked from using I-- 75 in Dade and Charlotte Counties and routed towards US 27 (or I- 3 ~4/I-95). ' Behavior - Response Times 3 The biggest contribution to the speed in which residents make the decision to evacuate is the urgency imparted by those giving the order the public hears or sees. An order informing residents that they have to evacuate and informing them that they have m several hour to do so has less urgency than an order that tells them to leave immediately for their safety. The County estimates in Part II assume a less urgent order and a set of circumstances that has the last of the evacuees starting their evacuation seven hours after the evacuation order is issued. This provides time for people to return home, purchase materials, load up goods, make destination arrangements, household arrangements and g�. This section assumes the impact of an urgent or "quick" order. This presupposes a set of circumstances that has all affected m persons warned at approximately the same time, access to the area being severely restricted, and the warning imparting information that the storms effects are imminent. For this type of order, a response time of two hours is assumed, reflecting time to dress appropriately, gather supplies, and go. It does not provide time for purchasing goods, doing much "about the house" preparations, or taking the household pet to the veterinarian. Using the 2- hour estimate, few zones regionwide have intermittent evacuation streams, providing room for other zones to enter the traffic flow. Overing effects will be much greater than for the seven hour estimate. TTable IV-3 depicts the changes in effected zones regionwide. There is no impact in reducing evacuating times for any coastal, county responding to a category 2 or 3 storm. Inland 3 Counties, however, have reduced times. ! U .7- >2�..~~~~i~~.. IV-3 I I TABLE IV-4 DECISION TIMES {Quickj_ Seven and -----~ _ _ - _ __ Two Hours Response I November Based on "Seven-hour" Response June November "Two-gour" June County Zone I Collier Everglades Goodland S. Naples Naples Beach East Naples Fakahatchee North Naples Golden Gate 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.7 2.6 2.0 5.2 2.0 4.8 3.3 2.0 3.5 4.4 5.6 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.3 2.0 2.0 5.9 6.2 3.0 2.0 5.8 2.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 �1- 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 I I I Lee Pine Island N.Ft.Myers/River North River N.E.River/Alva Iona Bonita Beach Old Ft. Myers Bonita Springs San Carlos Park Central Ft. Myers W.S. Ft. Myers Summerlin Tice Orange River E.S. Ft. Myers Page Field Six Mile Cypress N.Ft. Myers Charlotte 5.4 3.4 2.0 4.1 5.1 6.8 2.0 3.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7. 0 7.0 7.0 7.0 I I I I I I I I I I I Myakka River Barrier Islands Cape Haze Port Charlotte Peace River Punta Corda South County Cape Haze (2) Port Charlotte(2) Shell Creek Punta Gorda(2) South County(2) Cape Ha7ze(3) Shell Creek(3) Punta 'Gorda(3): 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7. 0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 * 7.0 2.0 5.8 2.0 4. 3 3.9 2.7 2.0 2.6 3.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0. 2.0 6.2 2.0 4.4 4.1 3.1 2.0 3.1 3.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2. 0 I IV-4 TABLE IV-4 (Continued) DECISION TIMES (Quickl Seven and Two Hours Based on I County Zone "Seven-hour" Response "Two-Hour" Response June November June November Sarasota Longboat Key 7.0 7.0 - 5.5 6.5 Siesta Key 7.0 7.0 5.7 6.7 I Casey Key 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 Manasota Key 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 Myakka Floodplain 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 i Englewood Bayfront 7.0 7.0 2.7 2.0 Venice/Osprey 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 Sarasota Bayfront 7.0 7.0 3.3 3.7 Myakka (2) 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 I Inland (2) 7.0 7.0 4.2 6.0 South Myakka 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 North Port 7.0 7.0 3.1 3.4 | ~Inland (3) 7.0 7.0 2.6 3.1 Hendry All Zones 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 Glades All Zones 7.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 f It should be noted that, unless the intercounty loading times decline to those levels indicated in Table IV-3, behavioral response time reductions have no real positive impact beyond a I movement to public or private shelters in the local community. Shelters and Shelter Space The County evacuation scenarios are based on the use of identified public shelters, providing 20 square feet per evacuee. Assuming that satisfying the sheltering needs of 66% of the County's evacuees through either public or private resources remains a goal, each County has two options, increasing shelter space or reducing the square foot allocation for each evacuee. I (A third combination combining both is also possible.) Each County has the capacity for increasing shelter space through the further designation as she]ter or refuges certain additional public and private buildings. Further, private sheltering efforts can be expected and are being promoted for different neighborhoods such as DRIs and mobile home parks. If a more m indepth review of private resources is undertaken, and such effort incorporated into public plans, the shelter needs of residents will be more closely met and out-of-county evacuation estimates made in Part II can be reduced. The volume of in- co.unty shelter needs, that. is yet unmet varies frow-coaai;y. t ,:, '" codnty and storm category'to storm category. This is depicted in * T<able TV-5. TV-5 TABLE IV-5 __~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I UNMET IN-COUNTY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SHELTER DEMAND Number of Evacuees with Unmet Needs Space Need (000) County Category July November July November Collier 1 31,112 42,389 622 847 2 I ~2 50,208 63,752 1,004 1,275 3 80,885 94,740 1,618 1,895 Lee 1 64,376 87,974 1,287 1,758 2 120,404 145,864 2,410 2,917 3 150,681 176,391 3,021 3,521. Charlotte 1 18,305 23,036 366 461 2 33,336 38,273 667 765 3 50,053 56,510 1,001 1,130 Sarasota 1 11,266 21,795 225 435 2 18,715 29,839 374 597 3 34,592 49,112 692 982 Excludes 34% of evacuees as "out of county" bound due to own desires Providing more space is one option. Reducing space for each evacuee is another option. Some areas propose less than our Region's 20-square feet per person (enclosed, including sanitary, kitchen, recreation, medical, and administration facilities), going as low as 10-square feet or lower. Whereas there has been some discussion in other areas to use a 10 square-foot standard, that has been proposed for only very short times and often excludes sanitary, kitchen, and administrative facilities. If the approach of using a lower standard is undertaken, this report analyzes only the impact of funnelling 24% of evacuees to public shelters on a county-wide basis. This 24% reflects those with a stated desire in 1981 to go to a shelter. It leaves totally unaccounted for the 21% of "don't know" respondents who are apt to follow a public official's direction as to the best approach to follow. Table IV-6 depicts the impact on shelter space of 24% going to the existing declared shelters. TABLE IV-6 | THE REDUCED SPACE OPTION Public Shelter Square Per Person Bound Evacuees Footage Average County Category July November Available July November Collier 1 19,195 23,550 244,000 12.7 10.4 2 23,398 28,229 144,000 6.2 5.1 'D : '"3 -. 32:,519 37,959 1. 44,000:-, 4.4. :3'.. .:';'. TV-6 3 TABLE IV-6 gContinuedl THE REDUCED SPACE OPTION Public Shelter Square Per Person |I~~~ ~~Bound Evacuees Footage Average County Category July November Available July November | i Lee ] 45,108 53,689 1,193,400 26.5 22.2 2 60,280 69,539 907,400 15.1 13.0 3 63,368 72,717 471,600 7.4 6.5 I Charlotte 1 12,960 14,782 247,,.060 19.0 16.7 2 15,969 17,905 153,140 9.6 8.6 E 3 19,533 21,910 65,040 3.3 3.0 * Sarasota 1 16,487 21,263 401,900 24.0 18.9 2 19,444 24,525 401,900 20.6 16.4 3 25,466 30,937 401,900 15.8 13.0 In comparison, the Black Role of Calcutta housed 140 disciplined persons at 1.8 square feet per person overnight, with 85% i fatalities due to suffocation. If 10 square feet per person is assumed to be the absolute minimum size (which has not been determined) shelter space without adverse impacts on people, then 3 only Sarasota County can meet this for 1-3 storm categories, and * 0 Lee for 1-2 categories. Roadway Levels of Service The clearance of evacuation times contained in Parts II and III presume an average roadway generating standard of "D." It is possible in tightly controlled traffic movement programs to achieve service level "E" conditions, which increased roadway vehicle capacity by up to 40%, according to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. This reduces clearance times be a simi]lar am ount. However, normal traffic movement combined with normal. traffic control usually causes service level "E" traffic loads to enter service level "F" conditions, reducing roadway vehicle capacity and increasing evacuation times. Depending upon the event(s) causing level "F" conditions, (a stalled vehicle on a bridge blocking a lane of traffic for example) traffic volumes may severely decrease beyond level D, C or even B loads. Some "F" conditions are associated with according like traffic movement, removal of the event does not remove the condition for some time. Consequently, "E" service conditions cannot be expected on the overall county or regional road network. It is possible, however, to impose strict traffic movement programs on certain selected roadway links that create the greatest clearance 3 time. Table IV-7 depicts how county evacuation times are improved with traffic control to "E" service levels on selected links. � � - � . ,i - . ,. � . ~ J.~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _s ; ' ...1 IV-7 TABLE IV-7 ROADWAY SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTIONS_ SELECTED LINKS (Quick Resp9ones Capacity Time County Category Season Link "D" 'E" "Di "E" Collier 1 J SR 951 1,036 1,728 7.4 4.4 N 9.3 5.6 2 J CR 951 1,022 1,703 10.0 6.1 N 12.3 7.4 3 J CR 951 1,-02Z 1,703 10.0 6.1 N 12.3 7.4 Lee 1 J SR 78 & 1,624 2,662 10.2 6.2 N Hunter 11.5 7.0 2 J SR 78 812 1,331 18.0 11.0 N 20.1 12.3 3 J SR 78 812 1,331 18.0 11.0 N 20.1 12.3 Charlotte 1 J SR 776 1,022 1,703 7.1 4.3 N 9.7 4.7 2 J SR 776 1,022 1,703 7.1 4.3 N 9.7 4.7 3 J Kings Hwy. 792 1,298 9.6 5.9 N 10.4 6.3 Sarasota 1 J SR 758 1,005 1,647 5.7 3.5 N 6.7 4.1 2 J US 41 1,828 2,997 8.1 4.9 N 10.0 6.1 3 J US 41 1,828 2,997 8.1 4.9 N 10.0 6.1 Mobile flome Park Self Sufficiency Mobile homes and recreational vehicle residents are commonly expected to evacuate regardless of. whether or not their park or residential site is expected to flood. This is because the home itself is less safe from winds than conventional structures. A technique currently in use in some Southwest Florida communities is to require mobile home parks outside of the minimum storm flood area (Category 1) to have adequate on-site shelter space for all residents. This section assesses the impact this would have if 66% of all mobile home residents stayed on site. a. Shelter Tmpacts If all mobile home residents desiring to shelter in the community were able to stay on site, there woul:d be more spaces available to coastal residents evacuating due to flood waters. Table IV--8 indicates the spaces that become available should the approach be taken. The stcrm category represents all residents in that. zone 'and. igrea-ter;. the; -- shelter space impact is on those spaces availabLe for the IV-2 .~~~~~~~~~ next lesser storm (i.e., Category 2 residents not going to Category 1 shelters). TABLE IV-8 INCREASED PUBLIC SHELTER SPACE WITHOUT MOBILE HOME RESIDENTS Equivalent Shelter Space Increase Number Percent (June Only) County Category Collier Lee Charlotte Sarasota 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 610 194 5,250 1,679 902 291 4,300 1,828 5 2.7 8.8 3.7 7.3 3.8 21.4 9.1 The table indicates the greatest benefits are felt Sarasota and the least in Charlotte. in This issue is not relevant for Glades and Hendry County since virtually all evacuees are mobile home residents. b. Evacuation Time Impacts The report has the assumption that 34% of all residents in the area will want to leave the area, regardless of whether or not there is local space available. This section assumes that is true for mobile home residents also. However, on- site sheltering then reduces the out-of-county (and in county) loading times. These forecasts provided in Table 111-4 and III-5 can be reduced through the on-site sheltering option. Table IV-9 depicts the reduction by county in hours and percent that the on-site mobile home option can have. TABLE IV-9 REDUCTION IN LOADING TIMES, MOBILE HOME ON-SITE SHELTERING Storm Category Hours Percent County Collier 1 2 3 1 2 3 0.2 5 0.1 2.7 0.1 <1 0.6 8.8 0.4 3.7 0.]- ~~<1 0. 1 3 '3 : :;;* . - ~ ,"l 0.1 <1 Lee Charlotte , 1 -2 : :.: ; ' 2 3 IV-9 TABLE IV-9 (Continuedl REDUCTION IN LOADING TIMES. MOBILE HOME ON-SITE SHELTERING Storm County Category Hours Percent Surasota 1 0.6 21.4 2 0.4 9.1 3 0.2 4.5 These reductions also include the impact of fewer "conventional" evacuees leaving because there is more shelter space available. Individually, the impacts on each county are somewhat significant, particularly for Sarasota and Lee. Collectively, overall times achieve minor reductions, for the greater storms, but significant reductions for lesser storms. Early Tourist Evacuation It is suspected that some tourists (hotel/motel residents only) would leave rather than experience a hurricane. This possibi]lity can be more assured if public policy encouraged tourists to leave prior to the general public being told to evacuate. This section tests whether such action improves the community's ability to evacuate and shelter persons. In effect, shelter space availability and inter-county loading times will be examined with the assumption that there will be no "hotel/motel" residents. Tables IV-10 and IV-1ll indicate the improvement in area shelter and evacuation times that such a policy would have. TABLE IV-10 INCREASE IN SHELTER SPACE (Public and Commerciall EQUIVALENT WITH NO HOTELLMOTEL RESIDENTS County Category Spaces Percent (June Only) Collier 1 1,188 8.9 2 542 7.0 3 242 3.1 Lee 1 4,801. 7.4 2 2,'842 5.9 3 298 0.1 Charlotte 1 906 6.8 2 706 8.4 3 46 0.1 Sarasota 1. 5,027 20.0 2 4,100 16.9 3 2,955 12.8 ' �& - V,' . . t-r'. . . I TV-10 TABLE IV-l11 DECREASE IN EVACUATION TIMES NO HOTEL/MOTEL RESIDENTS County Category Hours Percent (June Only) |I Collier 1 0.4 10.6 2 0.4 8.4 3 0.4 5.9 Lee 1 0.6 8.6 Iz~~~ i 2 0.5 4.0 3 0.6 3.4 Charlotte 1. 0.1 3.4 I|~~ ~ ~~2 O.1 2.6 3 0.1 1.7 Sarasota 1 0.3 9.8 2 0.3 7.7 3 0.3 5.4 Having hotel/motel residents leave the area early has significant * improvements in the shelter space and evacuation times of several counties. Regarding space, the best improvements occur for the largest counties; as far as times, it improves significantly for the Southern most two and for Sarasota, even for Category 3 storms. Survey Data and Use, the Feedback Loop The Original Hurricane Study made use of a newspaper survey to solicit responses on how people will behave. Since the original study there have been a number of pre- and post- storm surveys. These have estimated hlow persons will behave and have assessed how they did behave. There is not a strong relationship. What did become evident, however, was that-the evacuees tended to follow the advice given by public officials: if the officials told them to go to locally available public shelter, they were more likely to do so than if the officials told them to get out of the area. What is becoming evident is that there is a training loop. When the original Hurricane Study was developed the popular doctrine was that there was adequate shelter for evacuees. The study disproved that, and pointed out that there were shortages for the number of evacuees estimated from the surveys. Since then, some public officials have been encouraging residents that they should as a first option seek shelter elsewhere. This will undoubtl:ably reduce shelter demand -- but moves the problem to an out of regio-n road network which is too deficient for successful evacuations of the more severe storm categories. This problem can only be reduced through either road improvements beyond those needed for daily use, or more county self containment. Consequently, it is not possible to predict what residents will do, but current shelter and roadway conditions are inadequate for either the high shelter or high out of county behavioral response for Collier, Lee, and Charlotte Counties. I>o~~~ ~IV-I Vehicle generation was the other elemnent of the survey in which data was prepared.. This led to the conclusi-on that an average of 1.1. vehicles per household would be used in an evacuation. ToI date, there has been no information developed anywhere that would disprove this assumption. What bas been added is a background traffic estimate of vehicles "on the road" that are not includedI in evacuees' vehicle estimates. This is an improvement over previous studies vehicle movement estimates. Impa!ct of Evacuation OrdersI Again, the influence of training and-information i.s being felt. The original survey and study broke 'new ground' in emergencyI management and preparedness. The imanag"ers today are better informed and educated then they were previously. This has led to improvements in actions and planning'methodologies that this study has tried to i.ncorporate. The greatest factor as yet inadequately assessed is the impact in which nature, the manner, the urgency, and the timing of an order given by an evacuation manager will have on an evacuees decisions and actions. TheN preceeding section of Part TV have tried to give some options to reflect this (more versus less shelter being sought locally; 2 vs 7 hour decision times, D vs E road ].oadi.ngs, early evacuation ofI tourists). However, there can only be approximations. Different orders given to different localities will have different results. Future updates, and more specialized studies for limited3 geographic areas may develop better approaches to deal. with this issue. IV-1.2~~~~~~ TECHNICAL APPENDIX PAGE # 1 5 6 7 10 21 24 28 37 38 40 Public Safety Policies Concept of Operations Debris Removal Accidents and Vehicle Strandings Special Evacuation Provisions Drawbridge Operations Evacuation of R.V. Parks and Tourists Evacuation Control Debris Removal Problems Dwelling [Init Survey Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Hf I. J. K. * i. In 'the event the county jail must be evacuated, the first option for the approximately 50 people would be to transfer to an adjoining county. The small facilities in the old jail, located first floor in the County Courthouse could j. Evacuated areas must remain clear of people unti.l the I ~~Sheriff declares it safe to reenter. The Board of County Commissioners will announce this entry clearance to the *public from the EOC. k. Bull horn evacuation alert to areas ex cept mobile home parks covered by fire department. 1. Shelter security problems are to be resolved by the Sheriff's Department.. Punta Gorda Police Depart- ment: The police department is available for traffic control and crime prevention duties. At any given time, the department expects to I ~~~have 12 men available for duty. The Florida H!igh!way Patrfol � or tile National Guard can be moved in for traffic direction or looter control, if so requested through State EOC. The U.S. Coast Guard: U.S. Coast Guard may make the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary available for waterborne help. The Coast Guard should, with DOT, keep bridges open for I ~~~vehicle traffic only after a hurricane warning is set. Florid a DeparEtment of Transportation: DOT local staff has agreed to hielp in state highway problems during an evacuation. This would be arranged through State EOC. COLLIER COUNTY In Collier County, the Collier County Sheriff's Department is in charge of evacuation traffic control and law enforcement. The department is supported by the Naples Police Department. The Sbheriff's Department is responsible for all law enforcement, traffic control, and the department- assists in rescue efforts. As in CharloLte County, the Sheriff's Department can receive assistance from various State and Federal agencies. * ~~~~~~~GLADES COUNTY In Glades County, the Glades County Sheriff's Department is in overall command of traffic and law enforcement responsibilities in the event an evacuation is ordered. If assistance is required, *the county can request aid from thie Florida Highway (C.' .� 2 TECHNICAL APPENDIX A. PUBLIC SAFETY POLICIES Each county in the region currently has in place some mechanism for dealing with traffic control along evacuation routes. In each county, traffic flow is likely to severely stress road capacities during the evacuation process. Hazardous wind and rain conditions, and possibly tidal flooding, are likely to make this task all the more difficult. Traffic will probably require rerouting around flooded or blocked roads as the storm worsens. High-standing vehicles (high trucks, vans, trailers, etc.) may need to be removed from the routes because of wind conditions. Drivers and passengers in those vehicles will require alternate transportation. One lane of all evacuation routes is reserved strictly for emergency vehicles. In each county, law enforcement agencies have the following functions, equipment and facilities. CHARLOTTE COUNTY Sheriff (Public Safety Building, Punta Gorda - 13 ft. MSL: Englewood Annex - 8 ft. MSL: City of Punta Gorda Police - 8 ft. MSL) a. The Sheriff or his principal assistant will be located in the EOC with the operations staff. b. Stations traffic controllers to be used during a full evacuation of low-lying areas. A partial use of the pre- agreed plan would be activated for traffic controllers in reduced scope evacuations. c. Makes maximum use of automobile and aircraft public address systems to announce Board of County Commissioners' directed evacuation.I d. When the EOC is manned, the Sheriff shall coordinate major evacuation orders through the EOC as directed by the Board of County Commissioners. e. Provides local. liaison with Florida Highway Patrol or National Guard personnel if used after such assistance has been arranged through CEFA.' The Board of County Commissioners is overall authority for local use. f. Provides looter control over evacuated areas. g. Operates as the senior law enforcement agency in the county, operating under overall authority of the Board of County Commissioners. h. For hurricane evacuation, vans, boats, large trailer truqks,. or mobile h'omes..'including R.V.s'-, '"e. ; the evacuation routes due to high winds of 40 mph or more. I Patrol, the U.S. Forestry Service, the Florida Division of Forestry, the National Guard and various other State and Federal agencies. HENDRY COUNTY In Ilendry County, the Sheriff's Department is in charge of traffic control and law enforcement duties in evacuations. The department may call upon the agencies mentioned for Glades County. LEE COUNTY Inventory of Available Resources for Implementation 1. City Police Department a. Location of Office (1) Fort Myers - 1530 Reitman Street Fort Myers, FL 33901 (2) Cape Coral - 815 Nicholas Parkway Cape Coral, FL 33904 (3) Sanibel - P.O. Box 438 Palm Ridge Road Sanibel, FL 33957 b. Number of Personnel (1) Fort Myers - 102 (2) Cape Coral - 42 (3) Sanibel - 26 c. Number of Vehicles (type) (1) Fort Myers - 11 marked 2 trucks 2 vans 12 unmarked 5 leased unmarked (2) Cape Coral - 6 patrol cars 2 administrative cars 4 investigation cars (3) Sanibel - 4 patrol cars (includes 2 four-wheel drive vehicles) 2. Lee County Sheriff's Department a. Location of Office: 2055.Anderson Avenue Fo'rt Myers', FL 33901 3 b. Location of Jail: 2085 Second Street Fort Myers, FL 33901 c. Location of Stockade: 2501 Ortiz Avenue Fort Myers, FL 33905 d. Number of Personnel: 240 e. Number of Vehicles: 33 patrol cars (marked) 7special vehiclesI (marked) vans, etc. I helicopter .6unmarked cars 5 'motorcycles Traffic control and security (anti-looti.ng, etc.) will be3 performed by the Lee County Sheriff's Department, the Fort Myers Police Department, the Cape Coral Police Departmnent, and the Sanibel Police Departmeint.. Security and anti- looting enforcement of evacuation areas will be performedI utilizing the emergency lanes of evacuation routes. State law enforcement assistance, when needed, will be requested through the State Division of Emergency Management andI coordinated by the Florida Highway Patrol. SARASOTA COUNTY 1. The Sarasota County Sheriff is the Chief of Sarasota County Law Enforcement Service. He will coordinate all law enforcement activities Sarasota County (cities axndI incorporated municipalities), business and industrial law enforcement services, and private and volunteer forces, including deputized and special officers.I 2. The Chief of Law Enforcement Services will operate in accordance with the procedures set forth in Florida Statutes No. 31, and Chapter No. 252.09, to assist and support the Department of Emergency Management organizational plans and programs of the Coanty.3 *3. Chiefs of the municipal law enf-orcement departments in the County will serve as deputies for the law enforcement * ~services and will exercise command control over their own * units. 4. The Sarasota County Sheriff shall. assign a Liaison Officer whio shall coordinate law enforcement activities between theI Sheriff and the Florida Hfighway Patrol. The Liaison * ~Officer, on direction from the Sheriff, shall request assistance from the Florida Highway Patrol for manpower andI equipment as required. 5. Control levels: a. Florida Division of Emergency Management b. County c. Municipalities B. CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS A. During the increased readiness period, the Sarasota County Law Enforcement Service shall take the following actions to increase the service's readiness to carry out its mission as required. 1. The Law Enforcement Alerting List' 2. The Public Safety Annex 3. The Emergency Plan for care of prisoners 4. The plans for protection of vital facilities 5. The plans for assignment of law enforcement personnel, including reserve or auxiliaries. B. The actions stated do not preclude the taking of any other actions that the Chief of Law Enforcement services shall deem necessary to carry out the mission assigned to the police service. C. The law enforcement facilities, equipment and supplies should be checked for readiness. 1. Readiness of departmental and emergency headquarters and/or support EOC should be checked. 2. Law enforcement emergency vehicles, communications, and all special equipment, such as crowd and traffic control devices. 3. Check availability or gasoline and all other essential supplies. D. Alert Law Enforcement Personnel: 1. Both on-duty and off-duty law enforcement personnel and auxiliary personnel should be alerted. All personnel should be briefed on their emergency assignments"'and departments. Personnel should also be briefed on shelters available. 2. Cancel all leave for regular personnel and direct auxiliary personnel to standby for duty. 3. All personnel should review shelter and survival plans for their families.. '- - 5 E. Station uniformed law enforcement officers and pre-position traffic control devices as required to facilitate movement to shelters, such as signs, barricades and cones along movemnent routes as necessary. EXECUTION A. Inform all law enforcement personnel of the situation and put oni standby notice consistent with every day operations. B. Alert reserves and auxiliaries.3 C. Test and clheck all equipment for oper-ational readiness. D. Review emergency plans. RESPONSIBILITIES A. The Sarasota County Sheriff, as head of the Sarasota CountyI Law Enforcement services, will serve as a staff officer to the Executive Director of the Department of Emergency Management stationed at the Sarasota County EmergencyI Operating Center or alternate control points. B. Communications for the law enforcement services shall be as outlined in the Communications Plan, Annex IV to Sarasota Courity Peacetime Emergency Plan. C. Transportation units normnally assigned to components of lawI enforcement services will be retai'ned by that service in execution of the mission. The above information was adopted from the various counties' peace-time emergency plans and the Lee County Flood Evacuation Plan. C. DEBRIS REMOVAL During a hurricane evacuation, the region will likely experienceU high winds and heavy rains. Trees, branches, signs, various natural and man-made objects and trash will be swept or, washed onto roadways. This debris wil.l tend to obstruct evacuation route-s unless some mechanism is in place for its removal. All the counties in the region current ly.-have some plan for the clearing of~ blocked evacuation routes. The following is an overview of county plans. CHARLOTTE COUNTY The Charlotte Couinty fire departments have heavy-duty 6 X 6 trucks for use in road clearing operations. The County Public Works Department has heavy equipment which can be used for road work. This equipment and its operators are placed on alert in Lthe evenL of a hurri~cane warning.* .In -cert...i-n -statjon. tiv>7 Civil Air Patrol may be available for monitoring of evacuation routes. The Charlotte County MOPED Organization has offered help in monitoring conditions in hard to reach areas. Volunteers have also made ten 4-wheel drive vehicles available for debris removal, among other uses. COLLIER COUNTY .In Collier County, the County Engineer has ultimate responsibility for debris cleanup activities. He can ask assistance from the county fire departments. Heavy equipment and multi-drive vehicles are available for cleanup work in both Il .. agencies. GLADES AND HIENDRY COUNTIES The two counties have discussed the possibility of pre- positioning road equipment or heavy fire vehicles for use in debris removal, but no definite plans have been put in place. Both counties have heavy equipment and fire trucks which could be available for road clearing activities. Since most highways in these counties are State or Federal roads, the Florida DOT may be available for road clearing. LEE COUNTY Lee County debris removal responsibility is shared among the Lee County Department of Transportation, the Lee County Parks and Recreation Department and the equivalent municipal agencies in the three cities. Each agency will be alerted during a hurricane warning and will standby to begin cleanup operations within its particular jurisdiction. The Florida ..... Department of Transportation may be able to provide assistance along State and Federal roads. SARASOTA COUNTY Ultimate responsibility for debris removal in Sarasota County belongs to the County Transportation Department. Besides its own staff and equipment, the department can call upon private contractors to provide their own workers and machinery for debris removal. The Florida Department of Transportation is available for assistance on State and Federal roads. In the event of an evacuation order, municipal transportation departments are under county control. The County Transportation Director also advises the County Sheriff and the County Chief of Emergency Services on the availability or blockage of certain routes, so that evacuation traffic can be maintained. D. ACCIDENTS AND VEHICLE STRANDINGS The evacuation process is likely to be long and involved. Despite the best efforts of law enforcement agencies, accidents will occur. A large number of vehicles are likely to simply br'eakdown along, the route because of ...pr.e-ex'isting mechaniclv'"-- 7 problems or inadequate preparation (failure or inability to fuel vehicle or make necessary service to it). Each regional county has mechanisms to' remove stranded vehicles and rescue injured orI stranded motorists. CHARLOTTE COUNTYI As the senior law enforcement and traffic control offic:ial in thie County, the County Sheriff coordinates accident and rescue activities during a hurricane evacuation. For this task, he can call upon the Florida Highway Patrol-and National, Guard units (requests must be made through the Coun;ty Commission). In orderI to limit the number of accidents on countkr-evacuation routes, the county does not allow the use of vans, boats (or trailers) large trailer trucks, mobile homes or R.V-.s during an evacuation. These vehicles must evacuate before a hurricane warning is givenI or not at all. This is because of the danger that high winds will blow these vehicles over causing accidents or route closings.I The Charlotte County fire departments have the authority to evacuate mobile home parks and share responsibility for traffic control in these places. The Charlotte County School Board provides five 66-passenger school buses, which might, in some cases, be able to pick up stranded motorists. Coast Guard and Coast Guard auxiliary units can aid in rescue efforts ifI requested by the County Commission. The Peace River Power Squadron is available for water-borne or shoreline operations. Thte Civil Air Patrol, if weather permits, will monitor routes andI can provide instructions (by P.A. system) to stranded or trapped * individuals. Once again Moped and four-wheel drive organizations will volunteer their, services in hard-to-reach areas. The Charlotte County Police and Fire Departments have heavy * machinery and rescue equipment available for rescue operations. The El Jobean fire department will make available a tow-vehicle for the use of clearing the El Jobean Bridge, if necessary. OfI * course, County Ambulance and Paramedics Services will be on full alert. COLLIER COUNTY The Collier County Sheriff directs communications with regard to3 rescue and vehicle remov al operations. He coordinates these activities with the County Engineering Department which has machinery and manpower responsibilities. The Ambulance Service Director oversees the operation of ambulances during theI evacuation process. Ilie also is backup coordinator for rescue * Operations. The County Fire Departments assist in rescues and strandings, particularly in hard-to-reach areas.I GLADES AND FIENDRY COUINTIES These counties will undertake accident and str andirigI responsibilities in very much the same way _as Collier. Howeve.r; the rural nature of these counties, as well as the volume of traffic they may receive from the rest of the region, may require the assistance of Florida Highway Patrol, FDOT and other state and federal agencies. If these counties are forced to handle traffic from neighboring regions, then the state will almost certainly need to step in. LEE COUNTY 'Lee County accident and stranding procedures are virtually the same as those described under Debris Removal. The County will recommend that high vehicles such as vans, buses, trailers, boats (with trailers), mobile homes and R.V.s, evacuate during the hurricane watch period. They may not b~e allowed on the road during evacuation. SARASOTA COUNTY In Sarasota County, supreme authority, regarding accidents and vehicle removal, rests with the County Sheriff. However, much of the actual rescue, towing and vehicle removal work is actually by the County Transportation Director. It is this person's job to assure that the responsbilities are actually met. During the increased readiness period, the Sarasota County Director of Transportation shall take the following actions: I Coordinate and direct the removal of all debris and incapacitated private vehicles blocking the evacuation routes and coordinate and direct other emergency functions requiring heavy equipment. Position people and equipment at critical places along the evacuation routes. Advise the County Sheriff and the Chief of Fire Services of all roads suitable for evacuation routes. The heads of the municipal Public Works Departments, construction companies, and of Public Utilities Organizations in the County will serve as assistants and exercise control over their own units. The Sheriff's Department and Emergency Medical Services will ai.d in the rescue and transportation of injured persons. Thie highway patrol and other statelaw enforcement agencies may be used along State and Federal roads. The Florida National Guard may be used to supplement the Sheriff's forces in accordance with their Standard Operating Procedures for hurricane emergencies. The Civil Air Patrol may be used to conduct aerial surveillance of the evacuation proceedings and search and rescue operations after the hurricane has passed. ~ � , ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ..-. .,,...,.. 9 E. SPECIAL EVACUATION PROVISIONS In each county, there is a certain percentage of residents who do not possess, or have access to, an automobile. There are also prisoners, handicapped residents, hospital patients and infirm persons who require some special evacuation provisions. Each county is required to have some mechanism for transporting all of these people to safety. CHARLOTTE COUNTY I In Charlotte County, all evacuation- activities are under the direct authority of the Disaster Preparedness Coordinator. He is aided by the following officers and agencies in the following manner. Sheriff - I When the EOC is manned, the Sheriff shall coordinate major evacuation orders through the EOC as directed by the Board of County Commissioners. Provide local liaison with Florida Highway Patrol or National Guard personnel if used after such assistance has been arranged through State EOC. The Board of County Commissioners has overall authority for local use. In the event the county jail must be evacuated, the first location for the approximately 50 people would be to transfer to an adjoining county. The small facilities in the old jail, located first floor in the County Courthouse could also be used. County School Board (9 ft. MSL) Make shelters available to the American Red Cross 3 Provide five 66-passenger buses with drivers available at each of these locations concurrent with the setting of a hurricane WARNING: Englewood Palm Plaza Shopping Center Gardens of Gulf Cove (1)(Optional) Port Charlotte Cultural Center Promenades Shopping Center. County Airport U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotilla 98 (Port CharloLte/Punta Gorda) and Flotilla 89 and 87 (Englewood) cover the county. Flotilla 98 provides a marine radio andi operator in the EOC where a desk and antenna with coax cable are available. Use of the Coast Guard Auxiliary for warning, search & rescue, evacuation or assistance for disaster. victims would communicate the.se :. I 10 I needs to the U.S. Coast Guard in Fort Myers Beach to ohtain 3 ~~authorization for their actual involvement. Peace River Power Squadron Operate with the Coast Guard Auxiliary for similar assistance. ICivil Air Patrol Provide volunteer overflight of disaster or evacuation areas for information reporting. Airborne public address system I ~~can be used for evacuation warningsi a,nd other communications as necessary. Weather conditions, as well as availability ofthe CAP and its one single engine aircraft, will control teruse. MOPED Organization I ~~This organization will he helpful to gain access to hard to get to locations. Their continued help to confirm the list of disabled persons will make the list much more accurate I ~~and at a low cost. IMud Tuggers The 10 4-wheel, drive vehicles from volunteer groups in both the Port Charlotte and Englewood areas may be requested to assist stranded evacuees and help in a variety of emergency uses. The State Division of Emergency Management provides advice and assistance as needed for evacuation problems and danger DOT local, staff has agreed to help in state highway problems I ~~during an evacuation. This would be,arranged through State EOC. I UJIRS operates with the local Welfare Office to assist evacuation victims with a one-stop disaster center in the PCU Senior Lounge and/or Memorial Auditorium. These centers I ~~would be set up after a Presidential Disaster Declaration. U.S.. Coast Guard may make the US'Coast Guard Auxiliary 3 ~~available for waterborne help. County Public Works Department 1 ~~Provide rescue and heavy equipment as necessary to help keep evacuation routes open. Place all vehicles and heavy equipment in readiness concurrent with a hurricane WARNING 5 ~~in resource staiging areas. (Se-e I 7. I1 I County Fire Departments Individual fire departments remain on station until ordered to evacuate by the station fire chief, keeping the EOC informed. The El Jobean Fire Department has agreed to make a tow1 vehicle available for emergency removal of disabled vehicles at the El Jobean Bridge during evacuations. County Health Department Review plans with local hospitaIls *for the handling of victims. Establish communications with the EOC to advise availability of medical services. Be prepared to handle evacuees medical problems, especially disease control and potable water testing. Public Medical Facilities The possible evacuation of one or all hospitals, ACLFs and car.e centers should be considered. At this time, a mutual aid agreement between care centers has been negotiated. County Welfare Office Coordinate with fiRS and American Red Cross for emergency3 clothing, feeding, lodging, social services and registration/inquiry of disaster victims. Emergency Medical Service In addition to normal emerge-ncy medical service act as transportation coordinator for disabled evacuation. ERI3 Building volunteers to provide a 5 KW-electric generator for disabled shelters.3 Disabled Persons F.S. 252.355 mandates that the Disaster Prepar'edness Office maintain a list of those disabled who volunteer to participate in a program to help them in an emergency evacuation. All agencies withini the county dealing in anyway with the dlisabled persons will be asked to provide a listing of these pe-ople- to the Disaster Preparedness Office. Some of theseI agencies are: County Welfare Upjohn Healthcare Services Conigregate Meals Healtlh Plus (Meal_sq on Wheels)I *Area Agency on Aging . Florida flome Hlealthi Services- 12 HRS Senior Services Tele-Care Program Rome Health Service Inc. of I Florida Power & Light Charlotte Redicare Charlotte County Council on STAT Medical Aging The list of disabled persons will be maintained in the computer for easy access and updating. The ambulance service will transport special cases. A joint effort with the ambulance service will keep this list current. Disabled shelters are located, one tor each evacuee staging area, at: PCU, Port Charlotte Junior High School and Charlotte Senior High School. A'small medical staff and food supplies will be available in these American Red Cross operated shelters. The list of disabled persons will. be updated no later than June 1 of each year. The billing contracts with thie public through the Florida Power and Light Co. is recognized in the Florida Statutes as a means of alerting the public to the procedures for maintaining the list of disabled. Identification tags on disabled showing name and address as a shelter control method will be used. System to return disabled home after a disaster is the same I as their pick up, taking care that their home utilities function. COLLIER COUNTY Collier County divides all evacuation responsibilities among the members of an Operations Group, make up of county officials. The Operations Group is coordinated by, and advises, the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator (EPC). Under the EPC for evacuation purposes, are the County Manager and various county officers. Responsibilities with regard to special evacuation are as follows: 3 Sheriff: Responsible for all law enforcement, traffic control, and assists in rescue efforts. County Health Officer: Staffs shelter facilities as needed, obtains medical data and supplies, disseminates medical. and health bulletins to public through the Public Information Officer (PTO). Supplies medically trained personnel. Ambulance Service Director: : Supervises all ambulances that will be used for transporting ill or injured or handicapped. I Will be backup for communications to shelters and 'escue'efforts, .. e ..f t... 13 Superintendent Qf Schools: In charge of opening and closiug of .shelters and assisting in food supplies. Red Cross Disaster Chairman: Will furnish staff for manning shelters, food, and assist in med-ical efforts. The County can seek assistance from the Florida Highway Patrol, .National Guard, and various State and Federal agencies. GLADES AND IIENDRY COUNTIES Almost all residents of Glades and Hendzry Counties' live in mobile homes and will have to be evacuated in tl~e event of a hurricane. The counties keep lists of people requiring special services during an evacuation, but these individuals must inform theI county if they require help in evacuation. Help is usually provided by the counties' fire and Sheriff's Departments. LEE COUNTYI In Lee County, all evacuations are under the ultimate authority of the Emergency Management Director. The County has specialI provisions for dealing with handicapped, elderly and pedestrian residents. Several public and private institutions within the county wouldI require special evacuation procedures and assistance in transporting patients or residents out of endangered areas. The following is a listing of the major establishments and anI estimate of the number of persons requiring transportation. -individual evacuation plans for these establishment should follow general directional routes for the evacuation zones in which theyI are located. Establishment Evacuees Beacon-Donegan Manor 150 Lee Convalescent Center .140 Shady Rest Nursing Rome 105I Shell Point Nursing Pavilion 160 Serenity House/Cottage 24 God's Missionary Church & 20I Mission Lee County Detox. Center 20 The move ment of these persons may require the use of.-*busesI provided by the Lee County School Board. However, if buse s or other Iiigh-standing vehicles are utilized, it is recommenided that they move only during the watch period or when winds are lessI thani 40 mphi. The movement of buses or other highi-standling vehicles during the general. evacuation withini the warning period would present a potentially dangerous hazard through possibleI 14 overturning. In view of the limitations of vehicles available to evacuate those institutions, consideration should be given to the relocation of t hose elements of the population prior to the evacua;i.on of the general population. I 1980 U.S. Census of Housing data show that approximately 5.4 percent of all dwelling units in Lee County did not have access to an automobile. Simple projection of dwelling unit increase * since 1970 would seem to indicate the number of dwelling units curreyitly without automobiles in Lee County is at lease 8,516. A system for the identification and evacuation of these dwelling I units should be established. Inventory of Available Resources for Im'pld'mentation are listed on pages 3 and 4. Tt is recommended that all transportation of persons by bus shall take place during the watch period, not the warning period. ITo ensure the evacuation of those threatened residents lackinig traasportation, it is recommended that the Lee County Department of Emergency Management compile and retain a countywide on-going I listing of those households without private transportation. Any * future dissemination of public preparedness information should contain a request for the names and addresses of those residents needing transportation if an evacuation situation should arise. I. This could be accomplished by a simple telephone call to the Department of Emergency Management. The listing could then be transformed into a map showing the locations of such households.. * Emergency bus routes could then be planned from this map. SARASOTA COUNTY I Overall evacuation responsibility in Sarasota County is entrusted to the Executive Director of the Department of Emergency Manaigement. lie and the other county officials have the following I duties with regard to special evacuations. The Executive Director of the Department of Emergency Management * shall: Alert government officials, departments and agencies in accordance with S.O.P. Exercise liaison with American Red Cross. Coordinate countywide emergenicy operations. Maintain liaison with American Red Cross officials and assist in coordination of emergency services t.o disaster victims. I1 5 The Sarasota County Administrator shall: Coordinate the activities of all Departmnent Heads asI required. The Sarasota County Sheriff shall: Control established evacuation routes and coordinate any evacuation with the Police forces of each municipality. Call upon the National Guard for assistance as required. Provide security (one officer/shift) to each public shelter opened during the disaster. Inform the Executive Director of the Department of Emergency Management of non-functional vehicles or defective radio equipment. Control and coordinate evacuation of critical areas.I Establish safe routes for mass evacuation based on location of areas to be evacuated and availabi-lity of shelters. The Sarasota County Chief of Fire Services shall: Inspect first aid and other rescue supplies and fireI fighting equipment and augment as required. Inform the Executive Director of the Department of Emergency Management of non-funct ional vehicles or defective radio equipment. Assist with any evacuation as required. Telephione the Registered Inform requiring ambulance transportation to the Special Care facility and place onI alert to be moved. Prepare equipment needed for the evacuation. Coordinate the evacuation of Inform and Handicapped and persons without transportation with the Medical Director and School Board Director of Transportation. Coordinate the return of handicapped and infirmed citizens to their homes with the Medical Director and School Board Transportation Director. Establish mutual support agreements with neighboring communities and counties to provide personnel, supplies, andI equipment as needed. R?equest assistance from the Division of Forestry,- as needed. 16 The Director of the Sarasota County Department of Transportation shall: Designate and equip emergency standby repair and rescue crews. Inform the Executive Director of the Department of Emergency Management of non-functional vehicles or defective radio equipment. Provide radio equipped vehicles and operators to be dispatched through the Sarasota County Area Transportation office in conjunction with SCAT and School Board buses to pick up Inform, Handicapped, and nron-driving public, at risk. Make necessary repairs to essential facilities as required. Provide auxiliary power units to critical installations as required. Dispatch all other available resources as required. Shall advise the American Red Cross of the suitability of buildings for shelter use including the height of structures above level and its vulnerability due to flooding in heavy rains. Assign personnel with radio equipped cars to American Red Cross Public shelters. The Director of the Sarasota County Parks and Recreation Department shall: The Directors of the Parks and Recreation and the Building Construction Departments shall assist the Sheriff and the Chief of Fire Services as required. They shall appoint members of their Departments to the Handicapped Evacuation Team and assign personnel. with radio equipped cars to evacuate citizens to American Red Cross Public Shelters as coordinated by the EOC. The Director of Sarasota County Environmental Services Department shall: Inform the Executive Director of Emergency Management: of any non-functional vehicles or defective radio equipment. Restore potable water and sanitary sewer services as requi red. Assist the Sheriff and the Chief of Fire Services as required. '-": : '.".'; - 0'.i'",~:: �~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 17 I Appoint members of his Department to the Sarasota County Handicapped Evacuation Team and assign personnel with radio equipped cars to evacuate citizens to American Red Cross Public Shelters as coordinated by the Sarasota County Emergency Operations Center. The Medical Director of the Sarasota County Health Department shall: Inspect and replenish necessary serums and other health and sanitation supplies to meet anticipated needs. Prepare for the news media, radio and television stations appropriate public announcements and emergency instructions. Tf local hospital facilities become overburdened in a mass casualty situation, authorize and control. the use of locally available packaged disaster hospital components located at the Sarasota County Vocational-Technical Center. I I I I Provide the necessary inspection specialized health service teams, situation. personnel and other as required by the I Provide nurses for duty in the Sarasota County Emergency Operations Center when it is manned for emergencies. The Director of the Sarasota County Social Services Department shall: Support and cooperate with the American Red Cross in providing food, clothing, and other supplies necessary to the welfare of persons within the disaster area. Sarasota County Area Transportation Department shall: Prepare to deliver SMATS buses and communications' liaison personnel and equipment to the Director of Transportation and Communications of the Sarasota County School Board for use in evacuating infirm and handicapped and people without transportation. Assign all radio equipped vehicles operators to the Emergency Operations Center for dispatch by the SMATS Department for pickup of citizen.s without transportation. The Emergency Medical Director shall: Contact private medical and wheelchair transport companies for vehicle and personnel availability during evacuation and repopula ion. Sign Memorandum of Uinderstanding with such comnpanies establishing run rate prior to need. Provide the Executive Director of Emergency Management with copies of the Memorandums of Understanding. ' : '' .. . .. - ... . . - .' .. .' , I I I I I I J I I , ,.j;. '. ;. :, , ':", t ,, I. . ... . . . . 18 I Provide radio equipped vehicles and operators at pre- assigned public shelters and establish radio communication between the shelters and the Sarasota County Emergency Operations Center. Provide the Executive Director of the Department of Emergency Management with a list of the personnel assigned for this purpose. The Director of the Sarasota County Social Services Department shall: Coordinate emergency plans with the American Red Cross to confirm procedures and mutual assistance for providing emergency feeding, clothing, and the,.sheltering of disaster victims. The Superintendent of Schools shall: Have the Directors of Transportation and Communications establish liaison with: The American Red Cross for the opening of public shelters. The Sarasota/Metropolitan Area Transportation Service for the use of SMATS buses in evacuating inform and handicapped and people without transportation. The Sarasota County Chief of Fire Services for the coordinated pickup and delivery of inform and handicapped and people without transportation. Designate public school buildings available as Emergency Shelters, in accordance with agreement executed with the American Red Cross. Close schools, send children home, and report identity of schools to be opened as shelters to the Disaster Chairman of the American Red Cross. Private supervisory, food service, and custodial personnel for each activated emergency shelter as per prior agreement. Assure that school buses and drivers are ready and available for movement of families and individuals to emergency shelters as required by the Sarasota County Department of Emergency Management or for mass evacuation as required. The Director of the Sarasota County Central Services Department shall: Staff vehicle maintained facilities for emergency repair. 1_ 9 ! The Administrators of the Sarasota, Venice, Englewood, Doctors, and Sarasota Palms Hospitals, and Nursing Homes shall: Review their emergency procedures, augment emergency room personnel, if necessary, and check supplies based on anticipated requirements. Inform the Medical Director of the Sarasota County Health Department of available hospital beds. Prepare to discharge non-critical patients. Prepare to receive patients requiiring critical care from medical facilities requiring evacuation. Sarasota County Friendship Center shall: Prepare to deliver Friendship Center buses to the School Board Director of Transportation and Communications for use in evacuating inform and handicapped and people without transportation. The Disaster Chairman of the American Red Cross shall: Determine, in consultation with Emergency Management, if and when emergency public Red Cross shelters will be opened and to provide necessary operating staff. Request ratio stations to publicize availability of Emergency Shelters through the Emergency Management Public Information Officer. Open and man public shelters and conduct in-shelter operations during the emergency,' Provide food and water for evacuees in public shelters and special support shelters. Establish reception and care centers for disaster victims and inform the Executive Director of the Department of Emergency Management of the victims location(s). Open and man shelters as needed after the emergency. Continue to provide food, clothing, shelter, and necessary supplemental medical and nursing service for disaster victitus, as required. I Determine and announce closing of public shelters following a hurricane in coordination with the Executive Director of the Department of Emergency Management. Make arrangements for out-of-county reception centers for families and individuals evacuated from neighboring counties. Arrange transportation, as required', for movement of persons I to and from.emergency shelters and .t'o.hos-pitals-in-"instance,s.. I 2O I not required by ambulance. This does not apply to mass movement from areas being evacuated. Provide for individual and family assistance. The Florida National Guard shall: Alert all personnel. Support the Sarasota County Sheriff as required. The Sarasota County Radio Club shall: As volunteers, supply radio equipped vehicles and drivers to support departments or agencies in disaster operations as required. As volunteers, supply radio communications and operators for use in emergency shelters as required by the American Red Cross. Thie Commanding Officer of the local Civil Air Patrol shall perform aerial reconnaissance and assist relief agencies in the distribution of medicines and other vital supplies to the disaster areas as required. F. DRAWBRIDGE OPERATIONS Many of the region's barrier islands and coastal areas are connected to the mainland by drawbridges. Early. in the evacuation process, these bridges may be open to boat traffic, to allow owners to take their vessels to safe anchorages. As the evacuation progresses, bridges are usually closed to boat traffic to allow for evacuation of motor vehicles. Drawbridge policies of the different counties in the region are described below: CHARLOTTE COUNTY Special Provisions for Drawbridges Special Consideration for Unstepping Sailboat Masts: In order to assist large sailboats to unstep masts for passage up the Peace or Myakka River in search of safe hurricane mooring, a service for./this has been planned.' The "shrimp boat" side of Fisherman's Village and the Punta Gorda Boat Club are staging areas for this service. Boaters would negotiate payment directly with the crane operator anrd arrange for restepping service after the storm. The El Jobean Fire Department has agreed to make a tow vehicle available for emergency removal of disabled vehicles at the El Jobean Bridge during evacuations. .'',> :....:'* "'. Ce"-. ":'~.... ';~ '~:?:" '' ! 21 ! The Coast Guard should, with DOT, keep bridges open for vehicle traffic only after a hurricane warning is set. COLLIER COUNTY The County Hurricane Evacuation Plan has no special provisions for drawbridges. GLADES AND HENDRY COUNTIES There are drawbridges along the Okeechobee Waterway located at Belle Glade (on SR 71), Moore Haven (US 27), and LaBelle (SR 29). Since primary danger to these counties will come from high winds and heavy rains, it is unlikely that thes'e bridges will be under any particular pressure to open for vessels. These bridges will need to be closed to vessels during dangerous (40 mph<) wind conditions. LEE COUNTY It should be mentioned that Lee County has had one recent experience with a drawbridge mechanism malfunctioning during a hurricane warning. This was during the abortive alert for Hurricane Floyd, in October of 1987. The Edison bridge draw (Old US 41) failed to close after some vessels had been let through. A recommendation is that the span should not be opened to vessels during a hurricane warning period. Vessels wishing to evacuate should do so during watch periods only. Special Provisions for Drawbridges I I Lee County has drawbridges at Alva (between SR 78 and Olga (SR 31), Edison Memorial (Old US 41), and at the Causeway. Of these, the Alva bridge will probably be during an evacuation, so that it could remain open to Bridge provisions for evacuation are as follows: SR 80), Sanibel. blocked vessels. I I It is recommended that no draw or swing bridges be operated during the warning period to prevent wind-caused malfunctions which might block vehicle evacuation routes. They may be raised during the watch period if sustained winds are not exceeding 40 mph. SARASOTA COUNTY Sarasota County has the following drawbridges: Stickney Point Bridge New Pass Bridge Blackburn Point Road Bridge Albee Road Bridge Intracoastal Waterway Bridge at US 41, Venice Manasota Key Bridge over Intracoastal Waterway Ringling Bridge : Siesta:.Key: Bridge.:. .:. i......- ' .. I I I I I I 22 I Hatchett Creek Bridge Venice Avenue Bridge Sarasota County drawbridge openings or closings in a hurricane evacuation are based on the following evacuation schedule: The order of priority of evacuation | ~ i. All infirm, and handicapped people without transportation from all areas. ii. All residents of all keys. iii. All coastal residents on the mainland. iv. All mobile home parks on the mainland. v. All residents of low-lying areas on the mainland. Drawbridges are open to vessel traffic only during a hurricane watch period. Drawbridges are closed at the point when island residents are ordered to evacuate, and are not open until after the emergency has passed. The Director of the Sarasota County Transportation Department has the responsibility (with the U.S. Coast Guard) to order the closing of all County maintained drawbridges over navigable waterways along the evacuation routes between the keys and the mainland, and order all bridge tenders to secure their facilities and leave for safer quarters. At this point, the Director of the State Emergency Management Division shall request the closing of all state-managed draw bridges in the county to vessel traffic. le also makes requests m to the appropriate municipal governments for the closing of drawbridges over navigable waterways between the keys and the mainland, and in Venice to boat traffic. During the evacuation process, the transportation director has the responsibility to see that vehicle traffic across bridges is I unobstructed. This involves keeping bridges free from debris and stalled/wrecked vehicles. When the storm is over, the Transportation Director reopens county drawbridges, and the Emergency Management Director requests reopening of state-managed bridges. General Drawbridge Rules All drawbridges throughout the region should be locked in the edown" position duri.ng a hurricane warning. Boat owners in each I coastal county must be made aware of existing flotilla plans and understand that vessels must be secured in safe hlarbor prior to or d(luring the hurricane watch. The United States Coast Guard has authori-ty over the operation of dr.awbridges and navigable waterways. Working in coopOration. with ' t 23 state and local civil defense officials, the Coast Guard District D Commander will order the opening of a drawbridge only under extreme circumstances during an evacuation. It is strongly recommended that appropriate U.S. Coast Guard Regulations and Florida Department of Transportation procedures be researched and implemented to allow each county emergency management/civil defense director to assume authority to modify normal bridge openings during a hurricane evacuation. G. Evacuation of R.V. Parks and Tourists In the majori.ty of counties in the region, there are no special provisions for evacuating tourists. Tourist establishments; such as hotels, R.V. parks, camping grounds, and resorts; are required by law to inform their guests of hurricane watch and hurricane warning alerts. It is hoped that visitors to the region will begin plans for early evacuation at such time as they learn of the alert. County governments encourage high-topped vehicles (vans, trucks, trailers, campers) to leave during the watch period, as winds may endanger these vehicles during the hurricane warning period. In any case, R.V.s are required to evacuate during any hurricane warning and shelters and evacuation mechanisms will need to cope with any extra need created by tourists and R.V. owners. The following table represents an estimate of the 1987 R.V. traffic for each county for both July and November. The percentage of traffic represented by R.V.s is also included. An R.V. is considered to be any privately-owned vehicle used as, and equipped for, a housing unit. This includes travel trailers, customized vans and campers. July Jully November November County Total % Total % Charlotte 124 .29 310 .66 Collier 3,571 5.4 7,582 9.9 Glades 337 N/A 1,667 N/A Ifendry 232 N/A 529 N/A Lee 2,635 2.1 6,006 4.1 Sarasota 334 .30 759 .70 SPECIFIC COUNTY POLICIES CHARLOTTE COUINTY Residential vehiicles represent only a very small percentage of the Charlotte County evacuation traffic (0.29% - 0.66%). Even : so, a stalled trailer, or a turned-over camper, in the right place, could backup traffic for miles in an evacuation. Ideally, thc county hopes to evacuate R.V.s and mobile home residents some nine hours befor.e the arrival . of gale .force winds.-. -. I : ~~~~~~~~~24- Tourist population, including campers and recreational vehicle users, peaks between November and April. Thus, tourists and R.V.s would be more of a consideration in a late-season storm than in a summer hurricane. All of the county's R.V.s would be ordered to evacuate in any hurricane or tropical storm, because I of the possibility of wind damage. Most of the county's R.V. parks have no shelter capacity, and this will require residents to seek public shelter (or hotels) or travel outside the county. I It is hoped that R.V. drivers will leave sometime before evacuation is actually ordered. During the actual evacuation process, R.V. evacuation may not be allowed. The County rule is that: For hurricane evacuation, vans, boats, large trailer trucks, or mobile homes including R.V.s, will not be permitted on the evacuation routes due to high winds of 40 mph or more. COLLIER COUNTY Of particular concern in Collier County are the large number of tourists or winter residents staying on the Naples and Marco beaches. This will reach its hurricane season peak in November. Because of congestion of the Naples streets, the increased traffic volume may be a problem. Certainly, U.S. 41 through Naples will become the heaviest traffic concentration in the County. 5.4 to 9.9% of Collier evacuation traffic is likely to be I composed of recreational vehicles. This is enough to seriously clog routes should accidents occur. The County will order that all R.V. residents evacuate during a hurricane evacuation. R.V. i residents should follow the county suggestions: Trailer or mobile home owners should disconnect electricity at the pole or outside connection. Take indoors or tie down I all loose objects in your yard. Remember any special medicines, baby formulas or personal items must be taken to the shelter with you. For those who intend to leave the area in advance of the storm: 3 Tie down or place indoors, all loose objects from your yard and prepare your home for high winds by lowering hurricane awnings, closing shutters, taping'windows, etc. Turn off gas and oil supplies. If you live in a trailer or mobile m 'home, make sure it is securely anchored. All trailer or mobile home owners should disconnect electricity at the pole or outside connection and turn off oil and gas supplies before you leave. If you are taking your trailer or mobile home with you, leave as early as possible - if evacuation is officially ordered, trailers of any sort will not be 5 permitted on evacuation routes. _ *~~~..... . ' - ~,* ... 4'-*. :';* . .: 25 GLADES AND HENDRY COUNTIES Most of the popu lation of the two inland counties live in mobileI homes or R.V.s. This group is virtually the only one to require shelter in these counties. A very large proportion of the evacuation traffic in these counties is likely to be R.V.s orI travel trailers. lu Hendry County, the largest number of these will be around LaBelle. In Glades County, most of the R.V_ traffic will be in the lakeside resort areas. Tourists (excludi-ng R.V.s) are most likely to be located (in both counties) along the lakeshore. These resident.s should be encouraged to le-ave the area in the evenit of a hurricane watch orI hurricane warning scenario. This will retfice evacuation traffic, and make it easier for local mobile home residents to seek shelter. LEE COUNTY As in Coll:ier County, Lee County has a large tourist flux alongI its beaches. Most of this tourist influx is toward Sanibel and Fort Myers Beach. A lesser, but significant, amount of tourist traffic is toward Bonita Beach, and the urban areas of CapeI Coral, Fort Myers and Lehigh. Tourist activity in the County tends to peak around July 4 and Labor Day every year. This is offset by a large influx of winter residents from October to February. In fact, the County hurricane season population is highest in November. Occupancies of R.V. parks are highest in this month, also. The County provides tourist establishments with information pamphlets, on hurricane preparation and evacuation, to distribute to their guests. It is hoped that in this manner, County visitors will be alerted to take the proper precautions during the evacuation process. In general, tourists and visitors are advised to evacuate the area during the hurricane watch period. The evacuation of all travel trailer and R.V. residents is recommended in any hurricane or tropical storm warning. High-I velocity winds caused by the storm would also create problems for the movement of vehicles during the evacuatiou. Large trucks, trailers, buses, and other high-standing vehicles may be easily overturned by hurricane winds either while moving or parked. Lee County will have a fairly signifricant percentage of R.V.s in its evacuation traffic. Vehicle estimates put R.V. percent-ages between 2.1% and 4.1%. The possibility of these vehicles turning over, as described above, is a very real one. Such accidents could jeopardize traffic on County evacuation routes. It is thusI recommended, that R.V. owners wishing to evacuate in these vehicles do so during watch period, or prior to the arrival of 40 mph winds. Consideration should also be given to the relocationi of this traffic prior to ordered evacuations. 26 Lee County Emergency Management recommends: that those persons requiring evacuation using travel trailers, campers, or other high-standing, wind-resistant, vehicles should evacuate during the watch period, not during the warning period when high winds (>40 mph) might overturn such vehicles. Upon notice from the National Hurricane Center (NHC) that Lee County is under "watch" conditions, the Lee County Emergency Management Coordinator should I announce those zones which may require evacuation if the "watch: becomes a "warning." At this time, those. potentially threatened residen-ts using high-standing vehicles should begin evacuation. ; SARASOTA COUNTY In Sarasota County, the tourist influx tends toward the barrier islands, the North Port area and the cities of Sarasota and Venice. Tourist activity peaks during the summer of each year. I However, by mid-November, there is a significant influx of winter visitors and seasonal residents. In most cases, this influx in the winter is greater than the summer influx. It is the responsibility of managers or owners to notify guests of motels, hotels, apartments, condominiums, and R.V./trailer parks of impending hurricanes (or other disasters). Ideally, I this notification should be during a hurricane watch period. However, it is extremely likely, particularly in November, that a large number of visitors will be involved in the evacuation I process. During a Category 1, or greater, hurricane, Sarasota County will order the evacuation of all Recreational Vehicle facilities. It is expected that this population will be at its peak in November, and will be less significant in July. In general, it is recommended that R.V. owners evacuate during the watch period I (prior to the actual evacuation order). Shelters will be open at this time for those persons wishing to use them, but R.V. owners are encouraged to leave the county. In a Sarasota County evacuation, .30% - .70% of the traffic is likely to be composed of R.V.s. It is essential that evacuation of these vehicles begins in the watch period. In a large category storm, this large number of vehicles (in high winds) could present a very serious hindrance to traffic movement. Some combined mobile home/R.V. parks have private shelters. if flooding from tidal surge is not expected in the area, then residents of the park may use their private shelter. In fact, they will be ordered to do so. However, if such private shelters * are not available, then park residents musti either evacuate the county (during the water period) or leave their residences for a public shelter. As in the other counties, Sarasota -R.V.s will II not be allowed on evacuation routes -during the evacuatiion process. . ;( .... . . 27 H. EVACUATION CONTROL No successful evacuation ever resulted from mass stampede toward safe areas. If the evacuation process is to secure the safety of regional residents and visitors, then it must be ordered and regulated. In order to achieve safe evacuations, each county has selected certain routes which appear safest in hurricane conditions, and closed other routes which would tend to result in I slow or unsafe travelling conditions in a hurricane evacuation. CHARLOTTE COUNTY As has been shown in Chapter II, Charlottd"County is divided into three separate areas by the Peace and Myakka Rivers. Thus, the County's main evacuation routes must all cross. large stretches of water, and are subject to flooding. An orderly evacuation process is essential if residents of endangered areas are to reach safety before tidal or rainfall flooding makes routes unusable. The County will station radio-equipped school buses at the following points: Palm Plaza Shopping Center in Englewood Port Charlotte Cultural Center Promenades Shopping Center - Port Charlotte County Airport - Punta Gorda Initially, five buses are to be on station with others available. I These buses will not only provide transportation to shelters, but will also act as a means of monitoring evacuation conditions. The Charlotte County Sheriff and County Policy Departments will position traffic controllers at certain points on the evacuation route system. The following is a list of traffic control points and route directios at each point: 1. Duncan Road (US 17) and SR 70 (northeast on US 17 or east on SR 70) 2. Taylor Road and Airport Road (east on Airport Road or I * ~northwest on Taylor Road) 3. SR 771 and SR 775 (only northeast on SR 771 shall be allowed) 4. St? 775 and SR 776 (only east on SR 776 shall be allowed) 5. SR 771 and SR 776 (northeat on SR 776) 6. 1-75 and SR 776 (Harborview Road) (west on SR 776 or north on 1-75) I 7. US 41 and Melbourne Street (north on Melbourne Street) ' 2 28 ! 8. SR 776 (Harborview Road) and Kings Highway (north on Kings I Highway only) 9. US 41 and SR 776 (Harborview Road) (east on SR 776) 10. US 41 and Harbor Boulevard (north on Harbor or southeast on US 41) I 11. US 41 and Olean Boulevard (east on Olean Boulevard) | 12. Olean Boulevard and Kings Highway (north on Kings Highway) 13. Harbor Boulevard and Coulton Avenue (north on Harbor) 14. Harbor Boulevard and Midway Boulevard (only west on Midway shall be allowed) 15. Midway Boulevard and Kings Highway (north on Kings Highway) 16. Midway Boulevard and Edgewater Drive (only north on Midway will be allowed) 17. Midway Boulevard and US 41' (only west on Midway shall be *| ~ allowed) 18. SR 776 and US 41 (only southwest on US 41 will be allowed) 19. US 41 and Locust Street (north on Locust or southwest on US 41) Certain general evacuation plans will be followed. Staging areas will be the Charlotte County Airport and the Port Charlotte Cultural Center. All evacuation traffic north of the Peace River is collected only Kings Highway and eventually 1-75. If Kings Hlighway becomes impassible, traffic will be moved to high ground in north Port Charlotte and people will be asked to either remain in their cars or find public shelter. m The US 41 bridge on the Peace River shall be closed to normal traffic. Emergency vehicles will be able to use this bridge, hlowever. Only emergency traffic will be allowed to cross into Lee or Sarasota Counties. HIowever, Boca Grande residents will be ordered to evacuate into Charlotte CounIty, and Englewood residents will be allowed access to shelters in Sarasota County. If the approaches to the Myakka River bridge at El Jobean should flood, Sheriff's deputies will reroute evacuees in appropriate directions. All traffic on evacuation routes is required to stay in the designated lane (or lanes). Any remaining lanes are reserved strictly for emergency vehicles. All draw bridges will be closed to boaters during the evacuation order. It is expected that private automobiles will be the maiR t-'ffic during 'the eva'cuation process. I'n'oi'rder .'to.'e"iire6'th;:'.'': ''" 29 ! safe evacuation of the endangered populace, this traffic must be carefully controlled. However, individual freedom of movement will be permitted as long as it does not interfere with emergency traffic. COLLIER COUNTY In Collier County, there are now only three main evacuation routes available for the use of county residents. These are US 41 and 1-75 north to Lee County and SR 846 east to Immokalee. US 41 is likely to be quickly rendered unusable because of traffic from Naples and Bonita Springs. -Thus, the county's main evacuation arteries will be 1-75 and SR 846. All county evacuation traffic will be routed toward these two routes, whenever possible. This routing will be accomplished by the stationing of Collier County Sheriff's deputies at all major intersections. Collier County evacuees w:il]] be directed to travel north on 1-75 through Lee County to SR 82. At this point, they may seek shelter in the Fort Myers area or continue northward. Evacuees on SR 846 will be sent toward Immokalee. If conditions warrant, evacuees can find shelter in Immokalee, or they may then travel north on SR 29. However, these evacuees should be warned that shelter will probably not be available in Hendry or Glades Counties. This will force evacuees to either seek shelter in Lee, or perhaps along US 27 in Highlands County. GLADES COUNTY Most evacuation traffic in Glades County will consist of residents living in mobile homes or RVs. There is little danger of the county being threatened by anything other than high winds or rainfall flooding. Each of the county's population centers has at least one available public shelter. Therefore, all county evacuation control efforts will be directed towar the movement of evacuees to these shelters. The county Sheriff's Department will likely refuse shelter to out-of-county evacuees. County plans call for residents of other counties to be routed north, on US 27, to Hfighlands County. HENDRY COUNTY As in Glades, most evacuation traffic in Hendry will be from mobile home/RV dwellers. The county has. adequate shelter space for its own evacuees, but is not prepared to provide shelter to evacuees from outside the county. Out-of-county traffic will be sent north on SR 29 to 11S 27. They will probably have to continue on to, at least, Lake Placid before finding shelter. Evacuees passing through Glades and Hendry Counties should be advised to consider travelling to hotel/motel facilities in the lake country or Orlando areas. 30 LEE COUNTY The largest portion of the Lee County transportation system is within the low-lying coastal plain. This includes five of the county's major evacuation routes (US 41, SR 767, SR 865, and SR * 867). The two main inland routes (SR 78 and SR 80) both lie along the Caloosahatchee River and are subject to flooding in heavy rains. The third major inland route (SR 82) is likely to be crowded with evcuees from Collier County. Therefore, it is * important that county evacuation traffic be moved safely and efficiently along these routes, and along 1-75, before storm flooding or heavy traffic make roads impassable. The county hopes to be able to stagger zone evacuations so as to be able to avoid cross-impacts on major arteies. However, in a late-warning or fast-moving storm situation, staggering might not be possible. The county's main object will be to move traffic towards 1-75 (in the western portion of the county) and towards SR 78 and SR 80 (in the eastern portion). The following is a * list of traffic control points in Lee County. 1. Bonita Beach Road and US 41: move north on US 41. Traffic will be allowed to 2. Estero Boulevard and San Carlos Boulevard: Traffic will be allowed to move north towards the Matanzas Pass Bridge. 3. Summerlin Road and Gladiolus Drive: Traffic will directed either east on Gladiolus or north on Summerlin. be 4. Cypress Lake Drive and McGregor Boulevard: Traffic will be directed north on McGregor or east on Cypress Lake. 5. Cypress Lake Drive and Summerlin Road: Tr east on Cypress Lake or north on Summerlin. 6. College Parkway and McGregor Boulevard: T north on McGregor or east on College. 7. College Parkway and Summerlin Road: Traffi on Summerlin or east on College. 8. Summerlin Road and McGregor Boulevard: Tr northeast on McGregor or east on Summerlin. 9. Summerlin Road and San Carlos Boulevard: T be allowed to travel east on Summerlin. 10. Stringfcllow Road arnd SR 78 (Pine Island): travel east on SR 78. affic may move raffic may move c may move north affic may travel ,raffic will only Traffic will 1l. Matlacha Bridge: Regulation of traffic onto hridge. 31 12. Gladiolus Drive and US 41: Traffic will be routed east on Six Mile Cypress. 13. Cypress Lake Drive and US 4]: Traffic will be allowed to travel north on US 41 or east on Daniels Road. 14. College Parkway and US 41: Traffic will be routed north on US 41. The Lee County Division of Emergency Management may place Sheriff's deputies or traffic control devices at the following points, depending on local evacuation conditions and route availability. 1. Alva Bridge: In all likelihood, the Alva Bridge will be closed to road traffic during an evacuation. 2. SR 80 and Joel Boulevard: Traffic will be routed west on SR 80. 3. Bonita Beach Road and Old US 41: Traffic will be routed east (towards 1-75) on Bonita Beach Road. 4. US 41 and Old US 41: Traffic will be routed north on US 41. 5. SR 31 and Bayshore Road (SR 78): Traffic will be routed north on SR 31. 'I 6. SR 31 and North River Road (SR 78): Traffic will be routed north on SR 31 or east on North River Road. 7. Blind Pass Bridge: Traffic will be routed south on San Cap Road. 8. Big San Carlos Pass Bridge: In all likelihood, the Big San Carlos Pass Bridge will be closed during an evacuation. I However, this depends on rainfall flooding at the approach to the Matanzas Bridge. 9. SR 80 and SR 31: Traffic will be allowed to travel. north on SR 31 or east on SR 80. 10. McGregor Boulevard and Gladiolus Road: Traffic will be routed northeast on McGregor or east on Gladiolus. 11. Cypress Lake Drive and Winkler Drive: Traffic will be routed north on Winkler or east on Cypress Lake. 12. Sanibel Tollbooth: Traffic will be routed east on Sumnmerlin Road. 13. SR 78 and Burnt Store Road: Traffic will be allowed north on Burnt Store or east on SR 78. 1'4. SR 78 and US 41.: Trafffic will be routed.,nort: .,n [S.:,..': . 32 ! 15. Pondella Road and US 41: Traffic will be allowed north on US 41 or east on Pondella. 16. Hancock Bridge Parkway and US 41: Traffic will be routed north on US 41. 17. US 41 and Business 41 (north of the River): Traffic will be routed north on US 41. 18. SR 80 and Ortiz Avenue: 80. 19. SR 82 and Ortiz Avenue: or east on SR 82. Traffic will be routed east on SR ai Traffic may travel north on Ortiz Cape Coral Police Department The Cape Coral Police Department will maintain traffic control, during an evacuation, at the following points: 1. Ilancock Bridge Parkway and Del Prado Boulevard: Traffic will be routed east on Hancock Bridge Parkway. 2. SR 78 and Del Prado Boulevard: northeast on SR 78. Traffic will be routed routed 3. SR 78 and Skyline Boulevard: Traffic will be northeast on SR 78. Traffic will be 4. SR 78 and Santa Barbara Boulevard: northeast on SR 78. routed routed 5. SR 78 and Chiquita Boulevard: Traffic will be northeast on SR 78, or north on Chiquita to shelter. 6. Cape Coral Parkway and Del Prado Boulevard: Traffic routed north on Del Prado. 7. Cape Coral Parkway and Chiquita Boulevard: Traffic allowed north on Chiquita or east on Cape Coral. will be will be 8. Cape Coral Parkway and Skyline Boulevard: routed east on Cape Coral Parkway. Traffic will be 9. Cape Coral Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard: Traffic will be routed north on Santa Barbara or east on Cape Coral Parkway. 33 Fort Myers Police Department The Fort Myers Police Department will maintain traffic control at the following points during an evacuation: 1. McGregor Boulevard and Anderson Avenue: routed east on Anderson Avenue. Traffic will be .2. Palm Beach Boulevard and Fowler Avenue: Traffic will be routed northeast on Palm Beach Boulevard (The Edison Bridge will probably be closed at some point in the evacuation process.) 3. Anderson Avenue and Fowler Avenue: "Traffic will be routed east on Anderson or north on Fowler. 4. First Street and Monroe Street: Traffic will be routed northeast on First Street to Palm Beach Boulevard. 5. Main Street and Monroe Street: Traffic will be routed north on Monroe. S. Edison Bridge: The Edison Bridge will likely be closed to road traffic at some point in the evacuation process. 7. Caloosahatchee Bridge: The Caloosahatchee Bridge will probably be closed during an evacuation. S. US 41 and tlanson Street: Traffic will be routed north on US 41. I I I 9. Fowler Avenue and Hanson Street: north on Fowler. 10. US 41 and Colonial Boulevard: Tr on Colonial. Traffic will be routed I affic will be routed east I 11. Colonial Boulevard and Ort:iz Avenue: :Traffic will be routed north on Ortiz. I 12. Colonial Boulevard and Summerlin Road: Tr routed east on Colonial. 13. McGregor Boulevard and Colonial Boulevard: travel north on McGregor or east on Colonial. 14. Colonial Boulevard and Fowler Avenue: Traf north on Fowler or east on Colonial. 15. Metro Parkway and Ranson Street: Traffic west on lanson. 16. Metro Parkway and Colonial Boulevard: Tr routed east on Colonial. affic will be Traffic may 'fic may travel I I I will-be routed 'affic will be I I 34 I Sanibel Police Department I During an evacuation, the Sanibel Police Department will maintain the following traffic control points: 1. Periwinkle Way and Lindgren Boulevard: routed east on Periwinkle. 2. Periwinkle Way and Tarpon Bay Road: Tr southeast on Periwinkle. 3. Periwinkle Way and Donax Streetf Tra east on Periwinkle. Traffic will be raffic will be routed iffic will be routed 4. Periwinkle Way and Bailey Road: Traffic will be routed east on Periwinkle. 5. Causeway Road and New Bailey Road Connector: be routed north onto the Sanibel Causeway. Traffic will SARASOTA COUNTY During an evacuation, Sarasota County Sheriff's deputies will he positioned at all major intersections, and traffic lights will be turned off to allow the officers to direct traffic. Evacuation traffic will be directed in the following direct:ions: Loqgboat Key Sarasota County residents will travel south on Gulf of Mexico Drive to Ringling Boulevard and then to US 41. Lido Key Residents south of St. Armand's Circle will move north on Franklin Drive, or Boulevard of the Presidents, to Ringling Boulevard, and then to US 41. Residents:north of St. Armand's Circle will travel south to Ringling Boulevard and over to US 41. Bird Key Bird Key residents will take Bird Key Drive to Ringling Boulevard and ITS 41. Coon Key Coon Key residents will take Ringling Boulevard to IlS 4 I. Siesta Key Residents north of the junction of TFigel Avenue and Midnight Pass Road, will take Hligel Avenue to Siesta Drive, and then travel �~~~~~~~ "1~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M '~ .: ' : ..: ~' ' -':"::'. ':' ,; ~ '-. ' ? ' .'c'";',, ,;' :. .' ' '-' 35 ! east to US 41. Residents living south of the junction shall travel south on Midnight Pass Road, Ocean Boulevard or Beach Road, to Stickney Point Road, and then travel east to US 41. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Residents living north of Blackburn Point Road will move south on Casey Key Road to Blackburn Point Road and on to US 41. Residents north of 3300 Casey Key Road, but south of Blackburn Point Road, shall proceed north to Blackburn Point Road, and east to US 41. Residents south of 3300 Casey Key Road will move south to Albee Road and then east to US 41.- All residents south of Albee Road will proceed east on Albee to US 41. I Venice Residents between Roberts Bay/Curry Creek and Center Road (and I within 1/4 mile of the water) will take US 41 and/or the Venice ByPass to Venice Avenue, and then east to Venice Farms Road and Everglades Boulevard. They shall then travel north on Everglades Boulevard to 1-75. They may take 1-75 to Clark Road, Bee Ridge Road or Fruitville Road. If wishing to leave the county, evacuees should stay on 1-75. South Venice Residents of the area between Center Road and Manasota Road/5th Street (and within 1/4 mile of the waterfront) should proceed to US 41 and then north to Center Road, and then east on Center Road. Manasota Key Those residents living north of Manasota Road shall travel south I to Manasota Key Road to Manasota Road, and then east to SR 775 and north to US 41. Residents between Manasota Road and Blind Pass will move north on Manasota Key Road to Mansota Road and then east to SR 775 and north to US 41. Residents living south of Blind Pass will travel south on Manasota Key Road to SR 776, via Beach Road, then northeast to SR 775 and north to US 41. Englewood All Sarasota County residents living within endangered flood categories will proceed as directed by Sheriff's deputies. North Plort All Category I and 2 zone residents will proceed according to instructions from Sheriff's deputies. Sarasota County Sheriff's deputies may redirect traffic in any manner necessary to ensure a safe, efficient evacuation. ~~~~~~i. i 36 I I. DEBRIS REMOVAL PROBLEMS 3 CCHARLOTTE COUNTY Charlotte County Disaster Preparedness does not expect significant debris to accumulate along evacuation routes except routes except in three areas. These are State Road 776, between El Jobean and Murdock; US 17, between Shel.l Creek and the DeSoto County Line; and on SR 74, from US 17 to SR.31. County road equipment will be used to facilitate debris removal, along with private contractors. COLLIER COUNTY The only likely debris problem in Collier County about 3/4 of the way to Immokalee. The area forested Pine Flatwoods, close to the road. Other County expects no particular debris problem areas. is on SR 846, is a heavily than this, the GLADES COUNTY Information not available at this time. HENDRY COUNTY Information not available at this time. LEE COUNTY The debris problem during a hurricane evacuation in Lee County would consist mainly of tree.g and/or billboards. The County Division of Emergency Management foresees debris removal problems at the following locations: The entire length of San Cap Road 1. Sanibel/Captiva Islands: and Periwinkle Way. 2. Boca Grande: The entire route towards Charlotte County. 3. Stringfellow Road on Pine Island: The entire road length. 4. SR 78: From Stringfellow Road to Chiquita Boulevard. 5. The Sanibel Causeway: The entire length. 6. CT? 865: From US 41 in Bonita Springs to McGregor Boulevard. 7. Summerlin Road: Boulevzard. From the Sanibel Causeway to San Carlos 8. McGregor Boulevard: The entire length. 9. Cape Coral Parkway: The entire length. 37 10. Del Prado Boulevard: From Cape Coral Parkway to SR 78. This is due to the heavy concentration of billboards on this road. I1. IUS 41: From Gladiolus Drive to the Caloosahatchee Bridge. This is also mainly due to the billboard concentration. 12. TIS 41: From the bridge north to Charlotte County. 13. Business 41: From the Edison Bridge to US 41.. 14. Palm Beach Boulevard: From McGregor to 1-75. 15. SR 78: From Del Prado Boulevard to US 41. 16. SR 78: SR 31 to the Hendry County line. SARASOTA COUNTY In Sarasota County, the principal debris removal problems (during an evacuation) will occur along John Ringling Causeway. The road is heavily lined by Austrialian Pines. This route is the only road from the north county barrier islands. J. DWELLING UNIT SURVEY REGIONAL AVERAGES # OF ESTABLISHMENTS APT. CONDO HOTEL/MOTEL RV PARK MOBILE HOME 41 68 71 6 44 # OF UNITS 2,909 9,491 6,447 1,737 16,323 AVERAGE # OF UNITS PER ESTABLISHMENT 71. ]40 91 290 371 AVERAGE OCCUPANCY RATE (%) J N J N J N J N J N 70 78 51 64 40 50 .18 41 43 75 In attempting to determine the size of the affected population it is necessary to examine the occupancy/vacancy rates for the various types of dwelling units. The actual rate of occupied. units. (etti.mated by -the- comp.l0 . o(wner/manager) by season is given i.n Table A. The actual count of complexes contacted is gi.ven in Table B. :! t3 ' ' 'I TABLE A % OCCUPANCY SEASONALITY APARTMENT CONDO HOTEL/MOTEL RV PARK MOBILE HOME JUlY/NOV_ JULY/NOV. JULYLQOV. JULY/NOV. JULY/NOV. CHARLOTTE COUNTY 50/70 65/70 35/55 20/30 40/80 COLLIER COUNTY 71/83 42/61 52/64 40/72 35/66 LEE COUNTY 78/80 53/62 5/20 3/21 43/75 SARASOTA COUNTY 80/80 44/61 68/62 NR 54/77 TABLE B # ESTABLISHMENTS CONTACTED BY TYPE COUNTY APARTMENT CONDO HOTEL/MOTEL RV PARK MOBILE HOME Charlotte 3 9 9 2 8 Collier 11 14 22 3 6 Lee 10 27 1.3 1 14 Sarasota 17 18 27 0* 16 SUBTOTAL 41 68 71 6 44 ACTUAL UNITS BY DWELLING UNIT TYPE Charlotte 33 1,570 692 291 533 Collier 589 1,962 3,519 242 873 Lee 1,109 4,191 411 1,204 6,684 Sarasota 1,178 1,768 1,825 0 8,235 SUBTOTAL 2,909 9,491 6,447 1,737 16,323 - *No response from the few listed in the telephone directory. NOTE: There is some built-in inaccuracy in the tables above. For example, in Collier County, there is a complex with th_ name Bonita Beach Apiartments and Motel. Because of the name, the units have been divided between the apartment and hotel/motel categor ics when , in actuality, because of their location and usc, all the units should probably have been listed under hotel/motel only. Th is prol I)m occurred in all counties and most often near the st;ls: wh:ere seasonal:.. r-ates: are able .to comma.nd h.igheb: ii-. es;:. ...-.:;-:; ., .ii 39 Likewise, the line between mobile home parks and RV parks is sometimes blurred. Many RV and mobile home parks also had answering machines indicating the parks were only open in high season (Nov./Dec. to March). K. THE SAFFIR/S_IMPSON HURRICANE SCALE The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale is used by the National Weather Service to give public safety officials a continuing assessment of the potential for wind and storm surge damage from a hurricane in progress. Scale numbers are made available to pub] i.c safety officials when a hurricane is within 72 hours of landfzall. Scale assessments are revised regularly as new observations are made, and public safety organizations are kept informed of new estimates of the hurricane's disaster potential. Scale numbers range from 1 to 5. Scale No. I begins with hurricanes in which the maximum sustained winds are at least 74 mph, or which will produce a storm surge 4 to 5 feet above normal water level, while Scale No. 5 applies to those in which the maximum sustained winds are 155 mph or more, which have the potential of producing a storm surge more than 18 feet above | normal. The scale was developed by Herbert Saffir, Dade County, Florida consulting engineer, and Dr. Robert H. Simpson, former National Hurricane Center director, and projects scale assessment categories as follows: Category No. 1 - Winds of 74 to 95 mph. Damage primarily to shrubbery, trees, foliage, and unanchored mobile homes. No real damage to other structures. Some damage to poorly constructe(d signs. Storm surge 4 to 5 feet above normal. Low-lying coastal roads inundated, minor pier damage, some small craft in exposed anchorage torn from moorings. Category No. 2 - Winds of 96 to 110 mph. Considerable damage to shrubbery and tree foliage; some trees blown down. Major damage to exposed mobile homes. Extensive damage to poorly constructed signs. Some damage to roofing materials of buildings; some window and door damage. No major damage to building:;. Storm surge 6 to 8 feet above normal. Coastal roads and low-lying escape routes inland cut by risiIng water two to four hours before arrival of hurricane center. Considerable damage --to iers. Marinas flooded. Small craft in unprotected anchorages torn from moorings. Evacuation of some shoreline residences and low-lying island areas required. Category No. 3 - Winds of 111 to 130 mph. Foliage torn from trees; large trees blown down. Practically all poorly constructed signs blown down. Some damage to roofing materials of buildings; some window and door damage. Some struc.tural damage to small. bui.ldings. M.ohi L .. . Iom ..... 40 I destroyed. Storm surge 9 to 12 feet above normal. Serious flooding at coast and many smaller structures near coast destroyed; large structures near coast damaged by battering waves and floaLing debris. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water three to five hours before hurricane center arrives. Flat terrain 5 feet or less above sea level flooded inland 8 miles or more. Evacuation of low-lying residences within several blocks of shoreline possibly required. Category No. 4 -- Winds of 131 to 155 mph. Shrubs and trees blown down; all signs down. Extensive damage to roofing materials, windows, and doors. Complete failure of roofs on many small residences. Complete '"destruction of mobile homes. Storm surge 13 to 18 feet above normal. Flat terrain ]0 feet or less above sea 'level flooded inland as far as six miles. Major damage to lower fl. oors to structures near shore due to flooding and battering by waves and floating debris. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water three to five hours before hurricane center arrives. Major erosion of beaches. Massive evacuation of all residences within 500 yards of shore possibly required, and of single-story residences on low ground within two miles of shore. Category No. 5 - Winds greater than 155 mph. Shrubs and trees blown down; considerable damage to roofs of buildings; all signs down. Complete failure of roofs on many residences and industrial buildings. Extensive shattering of glass in. windows and doors. Some complete building failures. Small buildings over-turned or blown away. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Storm surge greater than 18 feet above normal. Major damage to lower floors of all structures less than 15 feet above sea level within 500 yards of shore. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water three to five hours before hurricane center arrives. Massive evacuation of residential areas on low ground within five to ten miles of shore possibly required. Dr. Neil Frank, present National Hurricane Center Director, has adapted atmospheric pressure ranges to the Saffir/Simpson Scale. These pressure ranges, along with a numerical break--down of wind andi storm surge ranges are: Scale Central Pressures Winds Surge Number Mi.] li bars Inches (mph) (ft.) Damage I1 980 28.94 74-95 4--5 Mi nima 1 2 965-979 28.5- 28.91 96-110 6-8 Moderate 3 9415-964 27.91-28.47 ll-130 9-12 Extensive 4 920:--944 27.17-27.88 131-155 13-1.8 Extreme 5 920 27.17 155-i 18 Catastrophic 41 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY A Report on Flood Hazard Mitigation. National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.: 1980. Adopted Five Year Transportation Plan July 1 1987 - June 30, 1992. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee: June, 1987. Baker, Earl J. Hurricanes and Coastal Storms: A Resource Paper on Risk Assessmentz Warning Response, Non-Structura -Damage Mitigation. and Awareness. Tallahassee: Florida State inlversly, Departmefint-f-Gography, 1979. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Population Division. Florida Estimates of Popujlation. Gainesville: University of Florida, April, 1987. Butler, John P., ed. et. al. Emergency Preparedness_ Evacuation and Relief Team iEPERT2: Planning for Hurricane or Other Natural Disaster. Sanibel: 1977. Charlotte County Peacetime Emergency Plan. Charlotte County Emergency Management. Punta Gorda: June, 1985. Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission. A CoordinationL Education, and Mitigation Model for Disaster Preparedness in Coastal Areas. Prepared for the Federal Emergency Management Administration. Brunswick: 1980. Collier County Peacetime Emergency Plan. Collier County Emergency Management. Naples: January, 1985. Collier County Transportation Improvement Program 1988-1.992. Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization: June, 1987. Glades County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Glades County Emergency Management: 1987. Griffith, David A., "Coastal Hazard Management: A Challenge for Florida", Florida Environmental and Urban Issues, 2 (1980), Ft. Lauderdale. Ifendry County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Hendry County Emergency Management. LaBelle: June, 1985. Highway Capacity Manual, 1985, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Special Report No. 209: Washington, D.C.: 1985. lHurricane Evacuation Plan: A Model for Florida's Coastal Counties. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Dlisaster Preparedness. Tallahassee: 1978. Hurricanes and Coastal xtom: Awareness. Evacuation~ and M4itigatjion. (Papers pres.ented at a national conferevice held May 29-31, 1979.) Baker, Farll.;J.. ed. et. al. Gainesv-ille: 1980. Lee County Hurricane Sheater Survey. Lee County Department Of Emergency Management. Ft.,.,Myers: 1987. Lee County Peacetime Emergency Pa. Lee County Department of Emergency Management. Ft. Myers: April', 1985. Lee C,ounty TKrnsp2rtati-on Improvement Prga 1988-1992. LeeI County Metropolitan Planning Organizati.on. May, 1987. McDonald, James R. and-.---W. Pennington Van. An Engineering Apnaysis: Mobi-le ETomesvi-in Wind-atorms. Prepared for National. Weather Servi.ce, National-r-Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Lubbock: Texas Tech Un!.i~ersity, 1978. National Governor's Ass6ciation Center for Policy Research. ComprEhensive Emnergenc~ypn ManageLaent: A Governor's Guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S- Government Printing Office, 1979. Neumnann, C.J., G.W. Cry, F.L. Caso and B.R. Jarvinen, Tropical Cyclonpes of the North Altlantic Ocean_, 1871-1977. Asheville, N.C.: -197-8.- -------- Division of Emergency..'Man-agement. State of Florida Peacetime Emer-jgency Plan.- Talld;ha~shee: 1979. Sarasota County Peacetime Emergency Plan.- Sarasota County Emergency Management..-Sarasota: September, 1.983.3 Sar3sota-Manatee Ar6af-- .Transportation Study/Tra~nsportationl Improve~ment ProgramN .. Sarasota-Bradenton Metropolitan Planning O-rganization, June l8~ Sheared Coordinate Sys,'emL for Storm Surge Eguations of Motion with a Mildly Curved Coast. Chester P. Jelesnianski, NOAAI Technical Memorandum, NWSN`,TDL-61. Silver Spring, Md. Simpson RobertH. anda. Herbrt Ri-ehl, The Hurricane and Its f Impa!ct. Baton Rouge: LSUJ Press, 1981.U SPLASII (SpeSial Prograiqr' to List Amplitudes of Surges from Hlurri cane s) Part 2: GenCeral Track and Variant Storm Conditions.I Chiester P. Jelesniansk:i;k NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TDL-62. SilIver Spring, Md. SLOSH tSqa, Lake and Ovel~lan d Surges 'from TIurric anes}. Chester >:.jelesnianski a:nd J. :J3Chen. 10AT,hi..,-e Preparation. Sil Ver Spri-pg, Md. Southwest Florida Reglional Planning Council.. Regional Comprehensive Policy P lahli Fort Myers, 1.987. [ Storm Tide Flooding in Lee County, Florida. Special; report prepared for the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. s ~ISR 8-07. Houston, Texas: UJniversity of St. Thomas Institute for Storm Research, 1978. Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plans Technical Data * , Report llpdate. St. Petersburg: Tampa Bay Regional. Planning ~* Council, 1979. , .... Technical Data Report: Ilurricane Evacuation Plan. I iPrepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. St. Petersburg: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 1981. | Texas Transportation Institute. Texas Hurricane Evacuation Study. Prepared for the Texas Coastal and Marine Council. College Station: Texas A & M UJniversity, 1978. I _Tropical Cyclone Data Tape for the North Atlantic Basint 1886-- 1977: Contents, Limitations- and Uses. Brian R. Jarvinen and *s : E.L. Caso. NOAA Technical. Memorandum NWS NOP 6. Miami: 1978.