Hurricane evacuation study for East Central Florida final report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

HURRICANE EVACUATION
STUDY

sift
diffif

0 L. I.Ll cl,
0 co

llusvi

f DI

COCOA

RO K-
LEDGE COCOA BEAC"

HV
635.5 PALM DAY
A8
1984
c2

H U R R I C A N E E V A C U A T 1 0 N S T U D Y

F 0 R

E A S T C E N T R A L F L 0 R 1 0 A

FINAL REPORT

JUNE 1984

East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
1011 Wymore Road, Suite 105
Winter Park, FL 32789

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, through the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. Supplemental
funding was provided by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

HAZARD ELEMENT

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
History of Hurricane Activity . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Hurricane Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Hazard Analysis Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

VULNERABILITY ELEMENT

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Levels of Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Evacuation Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Population-at-Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

BEHAVIORAL SURVEY ELEMENT

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Comparisons to Other Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

SHELTER ELEMENT %

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Shelter Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Shelter/Medical Facility Surge Analysis . . . . . . . . 93
Shelter Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Shelter Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Public Shelter Assignments o . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Alternate Shelters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

page

TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

Introduction . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Study Approach o . . . . . o . . . . . . o 117
Methodology . . . . . o . 118
Transportation Modeling Input Assumpti;ns' 120
Evacuation Time Requirements . . . . . . . . . . o 135

WARNING ELEMENT

Existing Warning System . . . . . . . . . . . o 141
Guide for Evacuation Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . 143
Public Behavior . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . 145
Early Arrival of Heavy Rains . . . . o o . . . . 145
Actual Vs. Hypothetical Hurricane . o o . . . . . . 145
Public Information and the Media . . . . . . . . . . 146

APPENDICES

List of Appendices . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . 147

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

I Hurricanes Passing within 60 Nautical Miles of
28.37 N. 80.41 W., Titusville, FL., 1886-1981 . . . . 6

2 Freshwater Roadway Inundation Analysis -
Summary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 11
3 Hurricanes Simulated by SPLASH II . e . a 13

4 Hazard Analysis Concept . o . . . . . . . . . . 20

5 Storm Surge Heights at Selected Points (Normal
Landfalling Hurricanes) . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6 Hurricane Hazards for Modeled Storms . . . . 31

7 Category of Hurricane/Level of Threat Conversion . . . 42

8 Evacuation Zones--Traffic Analysis Zones
Brevard County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Volusia County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

9 Storm Evacuation Zone Boundaries
Brevard County . . . . . . . o . o o 48
Volusia County . . o .. . . . . . . . . o . 49

10 Population & Vehicle Productions by Evacuation Zone
& Destination (Brevard County) . . . . . . . . o 52

11 Population & Vehicle Productions by Evacuation Zone
& Destination (Volusia County) . . . . . . . . . 53
12 Behavioral Survey Results . . . . . . .. . . . . 57

13 Com arison Matrix of Behavioral Surveys within
Mrida . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . 64

14 Shelter Inventory
Volusia County, East . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Volusia County, West . . . . . . . o o 76
Brevard County, North o o . . . . . . . 79
Brevard County, Central . . . o . . . . . . 82
Brevard County, South o o . . o . . . . 86

15 Surge Vulnerability Analysis
Brevard County
Group Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Hospitals . o . o . . . . . . . . 94
Nursing Homes . o . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Public Shelters, North . . . . . 96
Public Shelters, Central 97
Public Shelters, South . . . . . . . . . 99
Volusia County
Group Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Hospitals o o . . . . . . . . . . 104
Nursing Homes o . . . . . . 105
Public Shelters, East . . . . . . . . . . 106

16 Behaviorial Survey Response - Destinations . . . . . 110

17 Comparison of Behavioral Surveys within Florida . . . ill

18 Shelter Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

19 Alternate Shelter Analysis - Brevard Co.
(Hotels/Motels) o 0 115

20 Transportation Modeling Regional Storm Scenarios . . . 121

21 Vehicle Productions
Volusia County
Category 1-2 Storm Situation . . . . . . . . 125
Category 3-5 Storm Situation . . . . . . . . 127
Brevard County
Category 1-2 Storm Situation . . . . . . . . 129
Category 3-5 Storm Situation . . . . . . . . 130

22 Evacuation Routing Scheme
Brevard County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Volusia County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

23 Transportation Evacuation Times
Brevard County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Volusia County . o . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

24 Regional Storm Scenarios (Required Time for
Evacuation Order by County) . . . . . . . o 140

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title Page

I Freshwater Roadway Inundation Analysis . . . . . . 12

2 Landfalling Hurricanes . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3 Crossing/Exiting Hurricanes . . . . . . . . . . 16

4 Paralleling Hurricanes . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5 Space-Time Plot of Coastal Surges . . . . . . . . 23

6 Storm Surge Envelope for Hurricane
Displayed in Figure 5 . . . . . . . . . . . 25

7 Surge Profile -- Landfalling Hurricanes . . . . . . 27

8 Space-Time Plot of Coastal Wind Speed
(Category 4, Normal Landfalling) . . . . . . . . 29

9 Surge Profile Crossing/Exiting Hurricanes . . . . 33

10 Surge Profile Paralleling Hurricane:
20 Miles Inland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

11 Surge Profile Paralleling Hurricane:
On Coastline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

12 Surge Profile Paralleling Hurricane:
20 Miles.Offshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

13 Surge Profile -- Paralleling Hurricane:
40 Miles Offshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

14 Surge Profile -- Paralleling Hurricane:
60 Miles Offshore . . . . . . . . . . 39

15 Estimation of Cumulative Demand (Behavioral
Response Curves) . . . . . . . . .. . . . o 123

16 Hurricane Warning System . . . . . . . . . . . 142

INTRODUCTION

The State of Florida is recognized as an area highly vulnerable to the
destructive effects of a hurricane. The great length of the State's
shoreline, characterized by low-lying coastal topography and numerous tidal
inlets, offers little protection from the hazards produced by a major
storm. This vulnerability is enhanced by the historically high probability
of the State being subjected to a hurricane each year.

As rapid development continues to occur along Florida's coast, the
potential for a major disaster as a result of this vulnerability increases
each year. Those areas most susceptible to the destructive forces of a
hurricane--barrier islands--are also the areas most attractive to
development and resulting population growth. It is estimated that over
seven million persons reside in the coastal areas of Florida, the majority
of whom have never experienced the effects of a hurricane.

To reduce the potential for a major disaster along the State's coastal
areas, the Florida Department of Community Affairs has undertaken a program
to develop a series of coordinated hurricane evacuation studies throughout
the State. These studies are regional in nature--in that they recognize
that the destructive forces of a hurricane are not limited to one community
or county, but extend regionwide. As such, regional planning councils
encompassing coastal counties within their boundaries have been selected to
prepare individual studies for their areas.

The central issue to be addressed by each of these studies is the timing of
issuing an evacuation order. There is a point in time relative to
hurricane landfall when state and local authorities must order an
evacuation of vulnerable areas if there is to be sufficient time available
for residents to move to safety. In the past, when coastal areas were less
developed and many areas still retained rural development characteristics,
consideration of when an evacuation should begin was not a major concern.
Most areas could complete their evacuation within the 12 hours of warning
time provided by the National Hurricane Center. This may no longer be the
case, however, for many of the rapidly development coastal communities in
Florida. As the population along these areas continues to expand, the
length of time needed for evacuation also expands, and the importance of
quantifying and incorporating this variable into evacuation decisions
increases.

There are two major conditions influencing the parameter of time required
for the evacuation of any given area. These are:

1. The volume of traffic that may be expected to utilize the
evacuation routes and the capacity of these routes to
accommodate the traffic within a certain time period.

2. The time in which the arrival of the storm surge and/or high
winds may adversely affect the ability, of residents to
safely evacuate vulnerable areas.

Consideration of these two factors forms the basis for development of the
hurricane evacuation studies. These studies should assist local
governments in determining the probable impacts of a hurricane approaching
their area and serve as a decision-making tool for local response to these
conditions. They are meant to guide local disaster preparedness officials
in determining when and to what extent evacuation must take place based
upon information released by the National Weather Service as the hurricane
approaches. The development of these studies is not intended to describe
how an evacuation should be carried out or develop procedures for
implementing the evacuation. That is a function of the local Civil Defense
.offices and, as such, is beyond the scope of these work efforts.

The Hurricane Evacuation Study for East Central Florida includes 13 work
elements. These work elements provide a basis from which evacuation times
may be measured by identifying and quantifying the major factors
contributing to the hurricane vulnerability of the region. The major tasks
accomplished as part of the program are as follows:

Hazard Analysis

A comprehensive analysis of the potential hurricane hazards to the
East Central Florida coastal areas.

Vulnerability Analysis

An identification of the areas of Volusia and Brevard counties
vulnerable to specific hurricane hazards.

Population Data

A systematic enumeration of the dwelling units and population within
the identified vulnerable areas.

Behavioral Data

A statistically significant investigation of the probable tendencies
of potential evacuees.

Surge Roadway Inundation Analysis

An identification of low-lying roadways within vulnerable areas and an
analysis of their susceptibility to storm surge inundation.

Shelter Data

An inventory of existing public shelter characteristics and shelter
capacity analysis.

Freshwater Roadway Inundation Analysis

An identification of historically inundated roadways from rainfall
flooding.

Shelter/Medical Facility Surge Analysis

An analysis of the geographic storm surge vulnerability of existing
public shelter structures and hospital/nursing home structures.

Evacuation Zones

A delineation of the vulnerable areas into evacuation zones with
common hazard vulnerability and common evacuation routes.

Evacuation Routes

The assignment of evacuation vehicle volumes from specific zones to
specific routes to develop optimum intra- and inter-county routing
strategies.

Shelter Assignment

The assignment of specific evacuation zones to specific shelters based
on evacuation routing strategies and shelter capacities.

Clearance Time

The calculation of vehicle volume traveling times associated with the
movement of the enumerated vulnerable population from specific
vulnerable evacuation zones to specific evacuation destinations.

Evacuation Time

The formulation of recommendations for the timing of issuing
evacuation orders based on all components of evacuation time analyzed.

HAZARD ELEMENT

INTRODUCTION

The first step in the development of the Hurricane Evacuation Study is to
examine the expected hazards that would require the actual evacuation of
residents in Brevard and Volusia counties. This section will identify and
analyze the predicted hazards that may be expected to occur based on a
number of hypothetical hurricanes which have been simulated by the National
Hurricane Center for this Study. Included as part of this analysis are the
following: a history of hurricane activity for the coastal areas of East
Central Florida; hazards to be considered in the analysis; the methodology
used to predict the hazards of probable hurricane events; concepts and
assumptions to be utilized in quantifying the hazards; and results of the
analysis.

HISTORY OF HURRICANE ACTIVITY

The basis upon which this Study is to be developed is to plan for the worst
probable hurricane events that may impact the East Central Florida coast.
As such, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to assign quantitative
probabilities to the hypothetical hurricanes considered for analysis.
However, the general probability considered in the selection of the
hypothetical hurricanes by the National Hurricane Center was based on past
historical hurricane activity in this region, in addition to what was found
to be meteorologically probable. Such historical activity can be
summarized in Table I which identifies 16 hurricanes as having passed
within 60 nautical miles of the City of Titusville, the center point of the
region's coast.

The National Hurricane Center has officially designated the months between
June through November as "hurricane season," when the ocean temperatures
are at their warmest. Hurricanes will form only over tropical oceans where
the water temperature exceeds 790F. In examining periods of hurricane
activity, it should be noted that there are important seasonal changes in
the areas of hurricane formation, due to large-scale atmospheric
circulation patterns. These patterns include the Bermuda High and the
circulation features at upper levels over the western Atlantic and
Caribbean regions. Hurricane track charts compiled by NOAA indicate that
the majority of the hurricanes formed in June and July develop in the Gulf
of Mexico. During August and September, hurricane activity shifts to the
Atlantic where most of the storms affecting Florida form east of the
Caribbean and approach the State from the southeast. By September and
October, weather patterns have shifted again--hurricane formation is
focused in the western Caribbean and storms approaching Florida will do so
from the southwest. As can be noted in Table 1, the period of greatest

TABLE I

HURRICANES PASSING WITHIN 60 NAUTICAL MILES OF 28.37 N. 80.41 W.

TITUSVILLE, FL., 1886-1981

Closest Point** Distance
Starting Date Name* of Date at to Wind Speed*** Saffir
Approach C. P . !C- C.T.A. (Knots per hr.) Timpson
M.P.A.) Scale
(Lat.T7-Lo n
8/15/1887 Not Named 28.6N 79.6W 08/20 49.NM 105 3
08/15/1893 Not Named 28.611 80.1W 08/27 .29.NM 105 3
09/25/1893 Not Named 28.5N 79.9W 10/12 34.NM 96 2
09/18/1894 Not Named 28.6N 81.5W 09/26 54.NM 84. 2
10/07/1896 Not Named 27.8N 80.OW 10/09 44.NM 74 1
08/03/1899 Not Named 28.4N 80.OW 08/14 27.NM 105 3
10/20/1921 Not Named 29.1N 80.7W 10/26 42.NM 82 1
11/29/1925 Not Named 28.7N 81.2W 12/01 41.NM 64 1
07/22/1926 Not Named 28.3N 80.6W 07/28 6.NM 82 1
08/03/1928 Not Named 28.ON 80.9W 08/08 32.NM 80 1
07/25/1933 Not Named 27.4N 80.5W 07/31 58.NM 67 1
08/07/1939 Not Named 27.7N 81-OW 08/12 48 NM 68 1
08/23/1949 Not Named 27.6N 81.2W 08/27 59:NM' 100 3
10/13/1950 KING 28-1N 81.3W 10/18 44.NM 71 1
08/20/1964 CLEO 28-3N 80-9w 08/28 19.NM 7g
08/25/1979 DAVID 28.4N 80.6W 09/04 5.NM 8

*Stoms were not formally named prior to 1950.
"These columns give location and time of closest approach and distance of storm center to site.
***Maximum sustained wind speed near storm center while storm center is within specified distance
from site. This is not necessarily the wind recorded at given site.

frequency of hurricane a ctivity for East Central Florida is the three-month
period of August to October. Of the hurricanes passing through this
region, 81% have historically occurred during this period.

HURRICANE HAZARDS

The major characteristic associated with hurricanes is the exceptional
amount of energy associated with this type of storm. This energy is
capable of generating immense destructive forces that may threaten
thousands of coastal residents and hundreds of miles of coastline as it
approaches land. This study is primarily concerned with the three major
hazards associated with hurricanes: storm surge; high winds; freshwater
flooding. Each of these hazards constitutes a major destructive force
which may require the evacuation of residents, as well as impede the
ability of these residents to safely evacuate. Of these, storm surge has
proven to be the most destructive in terms of loss of life. It is
estimated that since 1900, 90% of all fatalities in major storms have
occurred as a result of saltwater drowning. High winds are also a
potentially devastating force, particularly to persons caught outside and
to structures such as mobile homes that are not built to specific hurricane
resistance codes. To a lesser extent, freshwater flooding from rainfall
may also prove dangerous to residents and destructive to property. Heavy
rainfall advancing with the hurricane may inundate poorly drained areas and
effectively block evacuation routes.

Storm Surge

For coastal areas, an increase in the ocean's surface level resulting in
the inundation of beach areas and low-lying inland areas is the main source
of destruction during a hurricane. Storm surges have been recorded as high
as 24 feet above MSL (Hurricane Camille, 1969) and extending over 50 miles
along the coast. Combined with its breaking waves and the normal
astronomical tide which is superimposed onto it, the storm surge acts like
a giant bulldozer sweeping everything away in its path. The higher the
surge grows over the sea, the more land will be inundated by the
propagation of its waters over low-lying land.

The storm surge is the creation of a number of factors occurring within and
around the hurricane. Primarily, it is the result of the barometric
pressure drop at the eye of the hurricane. The higher pressure exerted on
the water surface outside the hurricane center forces water down and into
the low pressure area, creating a dome of water. This dome of water is
contained by the high winds on the forward side of the hurricane, producing
a "damming effect" against the strong winds from the opposite side of the
storm, The dome of water is carried with the hurricane as it moves toward
land.

The storm surge in any given area is proportional to the pressure drop of
the hurricane center. The greater the pressure drop, the higher tile storm
surge that can be expected. A number of other factors, however, contribute
to the propagation of the surge and may reduce it or increase it from what
could be expected with the single consideration of pressure. These
include: the size and intensity of,the storm; its forward speed; angle and
position of the storm as it moves toward land; the offshore bottom
conditions (depth and slope); the physical configuration of the coastline.

Generally, shallow water off the coast where the hurricane comes ashore
increases the surge height. Also, the closer to perpendicular the storm is
to the coastline, the higher the expected surge height. Finally, increases
in the size of the storm or its forward speed will increase the surge.

As mentioned earlier, the wave setup and astronomical tide are superimposed
on the surge and increase its flooding potential. "Wave setup" is a
technical term used to refer to'the ocean waves generated by the storm.
The height of the wave setup is a function of the relative height of the
ocean, which is, in turn, a function of the storm surge and astronomical
tide. The maximum invasion of the coast will depend not only on the surge
heights, but on the daily and monthly tide cycle as well as any tide
enhancement (tidal anomaly) resulting from the general disturbance caused
by a hurricane. This relationship of the wave invasion to the tide cycle
means that a greater threat would be posed by a hurricane which arrived
during those portions of the month and the time of day when the
gravitational tide is high.

The sand dunes along the coast constitute the primary bulwark against tidal
flooding. These dunes are highest in northern Volusia County and southern
Brevard County and decrease to the south and north, respectively. Other
mitigating factors include onshore vegetation and man-made alterations
which contribute to "friction factors" that serve to decrease the areas
affected by the flooding.

The value in predicting expected storm surge heights in this Study is
twofold. First, the extent of land inundation is primarily determined for
the coastal area by the surge height. The movement of a significant surge
into the nearshore areas will not only devastate low-lying terrain, but
provide a base on which its high waters can be driven further inland by
hurricane winds. Second, storm surges may inundate coastal roadways before
the eye of the hurricane actually makes landfall. This would render such
potential evacuation routes useless to vehicles attempting to leave
vulnerable areas.

High Winds

Wind is the most commonly thought-of hazard associated with a hurricane.
Wind speeds may exceed 200 mph, although there are relatively few
measurements of sustained wind speeds above 150 mph since most equipment is

destroyed or becomes inoperative at extreme wind speeds. The highest wind
speeds which have been reliably measured in Florida were those during the
hurricane of September 1947. The maximum wind speed averaged over one
minute was approximately 155 mph, and the highest five-minute average was
121 mph.

Hurricane force winds are defined as those reaching or exceeding a
sustained wind velocity of 74 mph. It should be noted, however, that an
increase in force exerted by these winds is not proportional to an increase
in the speed. While the wind speed may double, the force of the wind
increases fourfold. As an example, Hurricane David had a recorded maximum
wind speed of 55 mph over the region. Should a hurricane the strength of
Camille impact the region with 220 mph winds, the force would be sixteen
times that experienced with Hurricane David.

A hurricane usually weakens very rapidly after moving inland. This
weakening is due primarily to the removal of the energy source provided by
the warm tropical oceans and the friction exerted by the land surface.
With the weakening of the storm, winds are also reduced to the extent that
a few miles inland from the coast, windspeeds may only be 60-70% of their
speed at the open coast.

Any time wind velocity exceeds 50 mph, damaging effects can be expected.
In a high wind, severe damage can result not only from the wind itself, but
also from flying debris. While the effects of these winds present a hazard
to all residents, mobile home structures are the most vulnerable. A mobile
home is necessarily of light-weight construction, with flat roof and sides.
Because of these characteristics, high winds can easily destroy it or
flying debris severely damage it and cause injury to persons inside.
Consequently, the National Weather Service recommends that mobile home
residents move to more sound structures prior to the onset of hurricane
force winds.

The hazard associated with high wind is not limited to its potential for
destruction, but it must also be considered for its ability to interrupt
evacuation efforts. Evacuation efforts cannot be safely carried out after
the arrival of sustained gale force winds (40 mph). These winds generally
arrive several hours before hurricane eye landfall and generally before the
arrival of the storm surge.

Freshwater Flooding

Based on past history, it can be expected that approximately 6-12 inches of
rainfall will accompany a hurricane, although no predictive tools are
available for determining the rate and geographic distribution of such a
phenomenon. While the event of rainfall itself may not necessitate an
emergency evacuation of coastal residents, it is significant in two
aspects. First, the amount of rainfall largely governs the water level in
the Indian, Banana, and Halifax rivers. Extensive rainfall in the weeks

preceding a hurricane will result in a high water level in the river
basins, requiring less water to overload them and resulting in flooding of
lower elevated land areas. Second, in poorly drained areas such rainfall
may cause the early inundation of evacuation routes. Intersections or
points of major roadways in Brevard and Volusia counties which may
experience significant freshwater roadway inundation are listed in Table 2
and illustrated in Figure 1.

METHODOLOGY

The major device utilized in this study in order to evaluate the potential
hazards of a hurricane striking the coast of Volusia or Brevard County is
the Special Program to List the Amplitudes of Surges from Hurricanes
(SPLASH II). The SPLASH II numerical storm surge prediction model was
developed at the Techniques Development Lab of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). SPLASH II is a dynamic computer model
which estimates the potential amplitude, extent, and duration of hurricane-
produced surges for an entire coastline, resulting from a series of
hypothetical hurricane scenarios.

A total of 74 hypothetical hurricane scenarios were developed and simulated
by the SPLASH II model. The various storm characteristics, or parameters,
which compose the scenarios were selected by surge forecasters and analysts
at the National Hurricane Center. The selected parameters were based on
actual past history of hurricane activity and are considered to be
reasonable and probable predictions of future hurricane activity in Brevard
and Volusia counties. The combination of the 74 scenarios which were
modeled covers the full spectrum of any hurricane activity which could
reasonably be expected to affect the coastline being studied. The
parameters which comprise the scenarios include the location of direction
of the hurricane track, the size of the hurricane (radius of maximum wind),
the speed it is traveling, and the intensity of the hurricane measured by
pressure drop and wind velocity. A listing of the 74 hypothetical
hurricanes analyzed by.SPLASH II appears in Table 3.

To ensure that all probable hurricane events were considered, three different
hurricane movements were modeled: landfalling, exiting/crossing; and
paralleling. These movements--as well as a representation of point of
landfall, closest approach, and angle of approach--are graphically
presented in Figures 2, 3, and 4.

The output of the SPLASH II model provides three major types of data on the
effects of the simulated hurricanes on East Central Florida. They are as
follows:

TABLE 2.

FRLStIWATER ROADWAY INUNDATION ANALYSIS - SUMMAPy

Site Number' Jurisdiction Vulnerable Roadway Description

BREVARD COUNTY

1 Cape Canaveral AlA at the intersection of Central Blvd.

2 Cape Canaveral AlA at the intersection of No. Atlantic Ave.

3 Brevard County Bennett Causeway (SR 528) on Merritt Islana
(unincorporated) along Sykes Creek

4 Cocoa Beach AIA at the intersection of Meade Ave.

5 Brevard County Merritt Island Causeway (SR 520) between AlA
(unincorporated)/ and Sykes Creek Pkwy.
Cocoa Beach

6 Rockledge US I at the intersection of Bougainvillea Dr.

VOLUSIA COUNTY

I Orinond Beach AIA at the intersection of !@eptune Ave.

2 Ormond Beach US I at the intersection of Hernandez @-ve.,'Yunge St.

3 Ormond Beach AlA at the intersection of Bovard Ave.

4 Holly Hill US I at the intersec-tion of 6tn St.

5 Holly Hill Us I at the intersectior; of 6th St.

6 Holly Hill LIS I at the intersection of 2nd St.

7 Daytona Beach US I at the intersection of Mason Ave.

8 Port Orange western approach of Port Orange Bridge

9 Ponce Inlet AlA - 700' north of East Winds condominium

10 Ponce Inlet AlA between Katherine Ave. and Oceanview

11 Ponce Inlet AIA at the intersection of Inlet Harbor Rd.

12 New Smyrna Beach AlA between Lincoln Ave. and Florida St.

13 New Smyrna Beach AIA between 4th Ave. and 5th Ave.

14 New Smyrna Beach US I at the intersection of Lytle Ave.

FIGURE I

FRESHWATER ROADWAY INUNDATION
ANALYSIS

Cj)

3 4

tOCOA KACM
00""

PUN DAY

TABLE 3

HURRICANES SIMULATED BY SPLASH II
(Special Program to List the Amplitudes of Surges from Hurricanes)

Landfall/Exiting'Pt. Pressure Radius of Forward Direction
or k Area Receiving Drop Max. Winds Spepd of
Type* Number Cat. Closest Approach Max. Surge/Winds (Millibars) (Statute Mi.) (in mph) Storm"

L RS 80 1 Daytona Beach Ormond-by-the-Sea 30 20 12 250
L RS 60 1 Mosquito Lagoon Daytona Beach 30 20 12 246
L RS 40 1 Canaveral Natl.Seashore New Smyrna Beach 30 20 12 241
L RS 20 1 Kennedy Space Ctr. Mosquito Lagoon 30 20 12 237
L LS 00 1 Melbourne Cape Canaveral 30 20 12 234
L LS 20 1 Sebastian Inlet Melbourne 30 20 12 230
L LS 40 1 Vero Beach Sebastian Inlet 30 20 12 225

L RS 80 2 Daytona Beach Ormond-by-the-Sea 40 20 12 250
L RS 60 2 Mosquito Lagoon Daytona Beach 40 20 12 246
L RS 40 2 Canaveral Natl.Seashore New Smyrna Beach 40 20 12 241
L RS 20 2 Kennedy Space Ctr. Mosquito Lagoon 40 20 12 237
L LS 00 2 Melbourne Cape Canaveral 40 20 12 234
L LS 20 2 Sebastian Inlet Melbourne 40 20 12 230
L LS 40 2 Vero Beach Sebastian Inlet 40 20 12 225
L RS 80 3 Daytona Beach Ormond-by-the-Sea 60 20 12 250
L RS 60 3 Mosquito Lagoon Daytona Beach 60 20 12 246
L RS 40 3 Canaveral Natl.Seashore New Smyrna Beach 60 20 12 241
L RS 20 3 Kennedy Space Ctr. Mosquito Lagoon 60 20 12 237
L LS 00 3 Melbourne Cape Canaveral 60 20 12 234
L LS 20 3 Sebastian Inlet Melbourne 60 20 12 230
L LS 40 3 Vero Beach Sebastian Inlet 60 20 12 225

L RS 80 4 Daytona Beach Ormond-by-the-Sea 80 20 12 250
L RS 60 4 Mosquito Lagoon Daytona Beach 80 20 12 246
L RS 40 4 Canaveral Natl.Seashore New Smyrna Beach 80 20 12 241
L RS 20 4 Kennedy Space Ctr. Mosquito Lagoon 80 20 12 237
L LS 00 4 Melbourne Cape Canaveral 80 20 12 234
L LS 20 4 Sebastian Inlet Melbourne 80 20 12 230
L LS 40 4 Vero Beach Sebastian Inlet 80 20 12 225

L RS 80 5 Daytona Beach Ormond Beach 100 12 12 250
L RS 60 5 Mosquito Lagoon Ponce Inlet 100 12 12 246
L RS 40 5 Canaveral Natl.Seashore Mosquito Lagoon 100 12 12 241
L RS 20 5 Kennedy Space Ctr. Canaveral Natl.Seashore 100 12 12 237
L LS 00 5 Melbourne Cocoa Beach 100 12 12 234
L LS 20 5 Sebastian Inlet Melbourne 100 12 12 230
L LS 40 5 Vero Beach Sebastian Inlet 100 12 12 225

E RS 80 1 Daytona Beach Flagler Beach 30 20 12 52
E RS 60 1 Mosquito Lagoon Daytona Beach 30 20 12 52
E RS 40 1 Canaveral Natl.Seashore New Smyrna Beach 30 20 12 52
E RS 20 1 Cape Canaveral Mosquito Lagoon 30 20 12 52
E LS 00 1 Melbourne Cocoa Beach 30 20 12 52
E LS 20 1 Sebastian Inlet Melbourne 30 20 12 52
E LS 40 1 Vero Beach Sebastian Inlet 30 20 12 52

E RS 80 2 Daytona Beach Flagler Beach 40 20 12 52
E RS 60 2 Mosquito Lagoon Daytona Beach 40 20 12 52
E RS 40 2 Canaveral Natl.Seashore New Smyrna Beach 40 20 12 52
E RS 20 2 Cape Canaveral Mosquito Lagoon 40 20 12 52
E LS 00 2 Melbourne Cocoa Beach 40 20 12 52
E LS 20 2 Sebastian Inlet Melbourne 40 20 12 52
E -LS 40 2 Vero Beach Sebastian Inlet 40 20 12 52

E RS 80 3 Daytona Beach Flagler Beach 60 20 12 52
E RS 60 3 Mosquito Lagoon Daytona Beach 60 20 12 52
E RS 40 3 Canaveral Natl.Seashore New Smyrna Beach 60 20 12 52
E RS 20 3 Cne Canaveral Mosquito Lagoon 60 20 12 52
E LS 00 3 Me bourne Cocoa Beach 60 20 12 52
E LS 20 3 Sebastian Inlet Melbourne 60 20 12 52
E LS 40 3 Vero Beach Sebastian Inlet 60 20 12 52

*Key: L - Landfalling Hurricane; E - Exiting/Crossing Hurricane

"Degree Clockwise from North

TABLE 3 (cont.)

P 1 20 Mi. West of KSC Cocoa Beach 30 20 12 160 to 1
P I Kennedy Space Ctr. Daytona Bch/Cocoa Bch 30 20 12 155 to 5
P 1 20 Mi. East of KSC - Canaveral Natl.Seashore 30 20 12 150 to 10
P 1 40 Mi. East of KSC Canaveral Natl.Seashore 30 20 12 147 to 15
P 1 60 Mi. East of KSC Canaveral Natl.Seashore 30 20 12 142 to 25

P 2 20 Mi. West of KSC Cocoa Beach 40 20 12 160 to I
P 2 Kennedy Space Ctr. Daytona Bch/Cocoa Bch 40 20 12 155 to 5
P 2 20 Mi. East of KSC Canaveral Natl.Seashore 40 20 12 150 to 10
P 2 40 Mi. East of KSC Canaveral Natl.Seashore 40 20 12 147 to 15
P 2 60 Mi. East of KSC Canaveral Ntl.Seashore 40 20 12 142 to 25

P 3 20 Mi. West of KSC Cocoa Beach 60 20 12 160 to I
P 3 Kennedy Space Ctr. Daytona Bch/Cocoa Bch 60 20 12 155 to 5
P 3 20 Mi. East of KSC Canaveral Natl.Seashore 60 20 12 150 to 10
P 3 40 Mi. East of KSC Canaveral NatI.Seashore 60 20 12 147 to 15
P 3 60 Mi. East of KSC Canaveral Natl.Seashore 60 20 12 142 to 25

P 4 40 Mi. E. of KSC Canaveral Natl.Seashore 80 20 12 147 to 15
P 4 60 Mi. E. of KSC Canaveral Natl.Seashore 80 20 12 142 to 25
P 5 60 Mi. E. of KSC Canaveral Natl.Seashore 100 12 12 142 to 25

*Key: P Paralleling Hurricane

**Degree Clockwise from North

FIGURE

LANDFALLING HURRICANES

VS
vs
wo NZ

of
...0s

vc.

coot 0
c
"0

FIGURE a

CROSSING/EXITING HURRICANES

MILO.

""Its

.sco
101.

."Des

VS I so 0,6@46
IV fj LD It
VS
VS bcZ

FIGURE 4

PARALLELING HURRICANES

VALS-1. -LOA
CL- L

fl.QLl
tevT

1.1co oTc.0L.
'OLLL

wAA.

11 vc.

j ... *01A of, To
*LA@dg

L16

v"m

CoIL-t-

o.-Ol

j 0 0

'17.

0 a surface envelope of expected highest surges for the entire
storm duration;

0 a space-time plot of surge heights along the coast; and

0 a space-time plot of coastal wind speeds.

The results of the SPLASH II model will be used to analyze various factors
pertinent to determining evacuation times. First, the envelope of expected
surges will be used to determine the extent of probable flooding along the
coast for each of the simulated hurricanes. Second, the space-time plot of
surge heights (which depicts how high the surge is expected to be at
specific locations and when the surge will occur relative to hurricane eye
landfall) will be used to determine potential flooding of roadways.
Third, the space-time plot of coastal wind speeds will indicate when
specific locations can expect the onset of gale-force and hurricane-force
winds and the duration of dangerously high winds.

Concepts and Assumptions

As with any evacuation planning effort that is concerned with the
prevention of loss of life, this Study is based on identifying the
potential effects resulting from the worst probable hurricane events that
may be reasonably expected to impact the region's coast. The hypothetical
hurricanes selected and simulated through the SPLASH II model are those
which, in addition to being meteorologically probable, are of such an
intensity and an angle of approach as to maximize the hazards considered by
this Study. By analyzing the worst probable cases, hazards of any
potential magnitude will be considered in the planning efforts at both the
local and regional levels.

The outputs resulting from the simulation of the worst probable storms
provide a means of quantifying the effects of hurricane hazards. The use
of these predictive tools begins to address the two primary concerns of
this Study, which are: the extent of the areas threatened by a hurricane
and requiring evacuation; and the time required for residents in a
threatened area to safely evacuate before the life-threatening effects of
the hurricane hazards arrive.

Xn addition to the predictive tools of the SPLASH II model, two general
assumptions must also be made to completely address these concerns. As
mentioned previously, SPLASH II does not offer any information on the
amount of rainfall expected to accompany a hurricane. In addition, the
effects of the frictional drag on the velocity of winds as the hurricane
moves inland cannot be determined from this model. Therefore, two
assumptions to be used in this Study are as follows:

0 all mobile home residents should evacuate from the direct
approach of a hurricane; and

0 the arrival of rainfall sufficient to flood evacuation
routes will generally parallel the arrival of sustained
gale force winds.

To illustrate the concepts and assumptions of this Study, Table 4 has been
provided which describes the effects of each hazard considered in this
Study. It then lists the predictive tool or assumption used to address the
effect, the action required to evacuate residents from the effect, and the
contribution of each effect to evacuation time. This table is a general
illustration of the hazard analysis concept used in the development of
regional evacuation studies throughout the State. It has been modified to
reflect the use of the SPLASH II computer model.

Input Parameters

As previously discussed, a number of meteorological parameters were
selected by the National Hurricane Center staff for inputs into the SPLASH
II model. These parameters were directly accessible and amenable to
measurement and represent the major variables associated with a hurricane
for predicting the storm surge amplitude. As can be noted in Table 3, the
input parameters used to compose each hypothetical hurricane included:

0 barometric pressure drop (millibars)
0 storm size (radius of maximum winds)
0 forward speed (miles per hour)
0 direction and landfall/approach angle of track
0 Saffir/Simpson Scale category

The principal parameter concentrated on by the National Hurricane Center in
programming the SPLASH II model is the pressure drop of the storm. The
peak surge value varies almost linearly with the pressure drop, so that the
greater the pressure drop, the higher the expected surge value. As shown
on Table 3 for each category of storm modeled, the pressure drop
increased--ranging from 20 millibars for a Category 1 storm to 100
millibars for a Category 5 storm. Based solely on this consideration, with
other parameters held constant, an increase in the intensity of the storm
would be expected to generate a corresponding increase in the storm surge
amplitude.

An additional indicator of storm surge amplitude is the radius of maximum
winds. This is a secondary consideration to pressure drop in predicting
storm surge values, butis, nonetheless, an important factor. From Table 3
it can be noted that most of the hypothetical hurricanes simulated had a
storm size of 20 statute miles representing what the National Hurricane
Center forecasters considered to be probable for this area. However, the
Saffir/Simpson Category 5 hurricanes were all simulated through SPLASH II
as having a radius of maximum winds of 12 statute miles. The radius was
reduced for this category of hurricane because, in general, Category 5

HAZARD RE
,@SPONSJ
%Q 0 1 It(, @ @ACTERISTIC EFFECT TOOL OR ASSUMPTION EVACUATION ACTION CONTRIBUTION TO EVACUATION TIME

Inundation of land and SPLASH 11 and Inland Flooding Evacuate all residents within Clearance time
Extent of evacuation devastation of structures model: surface envelope of predicted path of stom surge
highest surges above MSL
STORM

SURGE
Timing of evacuation order Inundation of evacuation routes SPLASH Il and Inland Flooding Evacuate vulnerable residents Pre-landfall hazards time
before eye landfall model : time histories of surges before predicted inundation of
evacuation routes

Extent of evacuation Devastation of structures Assumption: All mobile home Evacuate all mobile home residents Clearance time
residents should evacuate from
hurricane
HIGH M
WINDS
C> Timing of evacuation order Arrival of sustained gale force SPLASH II: Time histories of Evacuate vulnerable residents Pre-landfall hazards time
winds before eye landfall comouted wind speeds before predicted arrival of sus-
tained gale force winds
C-)
M

Extent of evacuation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RAINFALL kssumption: Torrential rainfall Evacuate vulnerable residents Pre-landfall hazards time
ficient to inundate evacuation before predicted arrival of sus-
Timing of evacuation order Inundation of evacuation routes Uutes ilI generally parallel tained gale force winds
before eye landfall he arrival of sustained gale
rrce winds

storms are smaller in size with a more compact storm center. As can be
seen in the discussion of the results of the SPLASH II analysis later in
this chapter, this reduced storm size was a mitigating factor in the peak
surge amplitude of a Category 5 storm.

Forward speed of the storm was also considered in developing the parameters
for the model. There exists a critical motion relative to the coast that
generates the highest possible surge under any given set of conditions.
The critical speed is generally greater than 30 mph. It will be less only
with exceptionally small storms or in exceptionally shallow or wide basins.
However, storms reaching land rarely attain a critical speed; thus, in
order to simplify the model, the National Hurricane Center staff selected a
constant speed for all of the hypothetical hurricanes. As shown on Table
3, a forward speed of 12 mph was used in each case, which represented a
mean speed for all the hypothetical storms modeled.

Another selection of input parameters focused on the angle of the track on
which the hurricane is approaching the coast. Table 3 and Figure 2 show
that the hypothetical landfalling hurricanes were simulated as approaching
at an 800 angle clockwise from the north. While storm surge values would
be maximized by a perpendicular (900) landfall angle, this track was
determined not to be meteorologically possible for this region.

The final parameter used in producing the hypothetical hurricanes was the
intensity of the storm according to the Saffir/Simpson Scale. This scale
defines storms according to the sustained speed of hurricane force winds
and also describes the expected surge heights associated with each category
of storm. Also from Table 3, a description of the categories of storms
modeled for each storm movement is available. Briefly, landfalling storms
were modeled for category 1-5 storms, exiting storms for category 1-3, and
paralleling storms for different categories depending on the location of
the storm in relation to the coast.

The height of the storm surge is determined not only by the parameters of
the hurricane itself, but also by the local topographic conditions of the
area. As mentioned previously, factors involved in that determination
include offshore bathymetry, coastline configurations, and astronomical
tides.

The offshore bathymetry, or ocean bottom topography, can have either a
positive or negative effect on the expected storm surge height. Wide
continental shelves with shallow depths of water, as found on the Gulf
coast of Florida, will produce higher storm surges than those found on the
east coast of Florida with its narrower shelf widths and deeper water.
-Storm surge heights for different locations will vary somewhat with the
surge values described by the Saffir/Simpson Scale due to these unique
offshore characteristics. The surge height ranges listed in the
Saffir/Simpson Scale are those expected for a "standard basin" which is
considered a hypothetical mean for all basins on the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts.

Coastline configurations also have a determining effect on expected surge
heights, but the effects are less well known. The impact of the two inlets
along the East Central Florida coast cannot be determined by the SPLASH II
model, although, due to their small size, it is not expected to be
substantial. The land configuration of Cape Canaveral does produce a
noticeable effect on the storm surge height, which is discussed later in
this chapter.

Lastly, astronomical tides can increase an already dangerous situation when
both the peak meteorological and astronomical tides occur at nearly the
same time. This situation generates larger total surges. As it is
impossible to tell if these tides will occur simultaneously, for planning
purposes, it is assumed that they will. These tides were superimposed onto
expected surge heights in assisting to determine vulnerable areas.

HAZARD ANALYSIS OUTPUT

As noted earlier, the major outputs produced by SPLASH II include storm
surge heights and time histories for surge and winds. For the purposes of
this Study, the time histories have been grouped under pre-landfall hazard
times which offer quantitative means of determining the amounts of time
needed for evacuating threatened areas prior to hurricane eye landfall.

The results of the SPLASH 11 model are provided for each movement modeled:
landfalling, exiting, and paralleling. The surge heights and pre-landfall
hazard times associated with each of these movements are presented in the
discussion which follows.

Landfalling Kurricknes

Storm Surge

Storms reaching land, traveling near normal to the coast, generate surge
profiles that grow with time. The position of the highest surge on the
profile remains stationary, eventually reaching its peak surge amplitude at
approximately the time of landfall. The surge, however, builds and abates
with time, with locations along the coast experiencing their highest surge
at different periods. In addition, there are negative surges to the south
of where the storm makes landfall. These characteristics are illustrated
in Figure 5 which presents a space-time plot of coastal surges for a
Category 4 hurricane landfalling 60 miles north of Melbourne (RS 60 on
Figure 2). The space-time plot provides a snapshot of tide heights along
the coast at half-hour intervals before and after landfall.

To initially assess the inland flooding potential for a hurricane, it is
necessary to quantify @he peak surge value for each location along the
coast, irrespective of time. The curve made up of the highest surges at
each point over the entire duration of the storm is provided by the SPLASH

FIGURE 5

SPACE-TIME PLOT OF COASTAL SURGES

th 17 im
:q
1.7 2.0 'S
tT 4 2 2
P 1.0 A , j.? 7--
2.1 P.S. 3.1 S.9 4 0.7 . ;.A
St. @uqustifle q 10 6. 3 5.7 . U.1 1.9- .9 1.2
1.8
Inlet I . I A 4.7 b'q h-6 1-2 - 1-3 - 1 .2 ;4
. >.$I" 1 .0 a 5
S.9 7. 1 7.0 3.11 . I h , .0 .4
2.2 2.7 3 5.b 7.0 8.2 5. 7 3 2.6 1.2 1 t I I 1 0 .8 S
---I ri. I.; S.. I b
31 ." 1.1 4.2 Q.1
n b.h . . Q.;) I n
S 5 1 .71 13 2 . 62..21, [email protected] 972 o 3To_ 1711 tT 5
9
q q R.4 11.6 P I A I A "_ @9. 7 a
.5 2 2 . 1 4.9 b. 7 8.9 11.1 12.2 10.7 6.9 1 . 1 .6 :9 a .5 .2
71> . q it -,
q.5
.9 .5 1.8 2.2;, b-1-4T 0--12 1-; 7 - -5 -;o
Flagler Beich I h I . . IP ti . 7. b.1 q.7 11.. 14 _3-LLI . 1 Ift.2 R.6 .I e
3 - 2.1 @.7 S 7 5.2 7 1 D.S 13.7 12.5. . 7.e 1 7 4 5
U."I 5 $ 0.0 A9.9 5
.2 1 .4 1.1 2 . 1 5 0 D-I
WyLina beach a 5--7-- s, -1 0
Sb zu
q - - -1 ;0-- 1 ;2 1 .3 1 b 2.0 2.5. S. a Q's 7. 0 9.SQ 1 1.2 04 7.6 2.5- .9 2 1 ..2 ..4
n . I . I . 2 . qA 3 a
I. > I. r . A . 1 7 . h . I
1 .0 1 .1 3
N- 'lllYI'lIJ 8-!dLh ...q 2.5 a S 3 S -.3 ..4 7 6
_,I_;9 I ;o Q1 .2 2.0 ?.7 3 5 9 35 1.4 .2 .6 b -.2 1 3 5 7 7
.h .7 .5 1.0 1 1 1-1-1 4@-@ a 0 - 2 -.hs -.5
S 7
-;S---
S
3 4 ' -* .4, . .. 11 - .11 .- . A- .-.111, -.7
I,I .9 b
.7 .1 . fi * c
7
2 :7
. I . . n ..> .. -I . I *R'.1 . 7
Cipe Cwiveral ..0 ..2 -.5 1 o I- '
- I !, -1.9 - I. b. . 3 3_
x P n . , -.6 . I * %.-1 .0 - I I I - . 1 1.
.3 .2 3 .2 -1- -1-. 0-- 3- --- --:7 S-@- IT 7-- 4---.
1 ..16
2:.2 .1 1 .. I%. T-T I. . . a.
-3 1.5 7 .2. 3 ..q 4
C; - 43
Melbourne 2-
.2-
2-
.4 L
ot .9 .2 .2 4 0
Veri Beich 1 .0

II model as a storm surge envelope. The example of this envelope for the
hurricane displayed in Figure 5 is provided in Figure 6.

In examining the storm surge envelope, several points are worth noting that
are characteristic of all the landfalling hurricanes modeled. First, the
highest surge value always occurs to the north of the point of landfall,
due to the counter-clockwise motion of the storm. In the example used
above, the storm L4RS60 landfalls just south of New Smyrna Beach but
produces the highest -surge at Daytona Beach. Second, storm surge values
increase rapidly to the south of eye landfall and fall off gradually to the
north once again. This is the result of the counter-clockwise motion of
the storm aided by the "damming effect" of the high winds within the
hurricane. Third, as evident from the surge envelope, a hurricane will
produce various peak surge values along the coastline. While a 15.1-foot
surge can be expected at Daytona Beach for the particular storm mentioned
above, the peak surge experienced at Cape Canaveral is less than 1 foot.

The different surge values produced by a storm have a particular relevance
to this Study. As a storm approaches land, it is necessary for disaster
preparedness officials to be able to assess the impacts from a hurricane
that may pass close by, but not directly over, their county. In the case
of Brevard and Volusia counties, with their long coastlines, it is also
necessary to determine what the effect of a storm striking one part of the
county will have on the other part. Table 5 provides information on the
expected surge levels that may be expected along the coastline for each of
the landfalling hurricanes modeled. This table illustrates which storm
tracks will create tidal flooding problems for particular sections along
the region's coastal areas.

As can be noted from Table 5, landfalling hurricanes simulated as
approaching at an 800 angle (worst possible) resulted in a peak surge
height of 15.5 feet at the worst single point for the worst probable storm
event, a Category 5 storm. The more likely flooding, however, results from
a Category I or 2 storm, producing a peak surge amplitude of less than 8
feet, A storm surge profile graphically illustrating the peak surge values
predicted for each category of storm is provided in Figure 7.

When compared to typical tidal flooding heights expected by the
Saffir/Simpson Scale, values for storm surges in the region are similar,
although they usually fall within the lower end of the Scale. This is
particularly true for Brevard County. The lower values are explained by
the relatively low shoaling factor along the East Central Florida coast,
which ranges from 0.67 in south Brevard County to 0.85 in north Volusia
County. The shoaling factor i-s a measurement of the slope of the offshore
bathymetry and is a function of the width of the continental shelf. This
shelf is relatively narrow along the region's coast when compared to the
rest of the coastline along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

The shoaling factor also explains the noticeabl.e rise in storm surge values
the further north a hurricane makes landfall. The continental shelf width

FIGURE 6
STORM SURGE ENVELOPE FOR HURRICANE DISPLAYED IN FIGURE 5
Nearest approach of storm to basin center is ----------- ill miles, on Thur " 9/2/82, at 12 hours
The basin's center is located -------------------------- 0 miles to the left of Vero Beach
Initial, closest approach & final pressure drops are --- 60.0 60.0 41 mbs, respectively
Initial, closest approach & final storm sizes are ------ 20.0 20.0 25 statute miles, respectively
Storm
Storm Surge Heights (feet)
Is

S:q I bQ. 124OLSt
b:3 ST AUG TNL, 120OLST
7:q 12noLST
1 20OLST
10:3 120OLST
FLGCR BCH
1?'a 120. 12nOLST
120OL67
145 DT04A BCH 12nOLST
5K. fl
:?-' N 5VYRNA 3 120OLST
3 1 10OLST
7:9 go. 1000LST
Ln 5:0 100OLST
a:2 090OLST
0:7 CP CANAVRL ISOOLST
0:6 1500LST
:3 40. 160OLST
:1 OEL&OURNE A000LS1
0:3 OOOOLSt
0:S OwLST
o:3 0000LST
-3
o ;ERG BEACH OOOOLST
004OLsT
-F-T-PRe-+NL-- OODOLST
0,2
0 :2 200OLST
0:3 160OL3T
0 : 3-40. 1408E SGUNO 160OLSt
0 :5 IbOOLST
8:3 IbOOLST

TABLE 5

STORM SURGE HEIGHTS AT SELECTED POINTS

Normal Landfalling Hurricanes

Sebastian Cape Mosquito New Smyrna Ormond
HURRICANE Inlet Melbourne Canaveral Logoon Beach Daytona Beach By The Sea

LIRS80 .2 .1 .5 1.3 2.7 4.8 5.5
LlRS60 .2 .2 1.0 2.8 5.1 5.4 5.0
LlRS40 .3 .3 2.2 5.1 5.3 4.8 4.1
LIRS20 .5 .6 4.8 5.0 3.7 2.5 1.8
LILSOO 1.1 2.6 4.5 2.7 1.9 1.4 1.2
LlLS20 3.6 4.7 3.2 1.6 1.2 .9 .9
LlLS40 4.5 3.3 1.5 1.0 .8 .7 .7

L2RS80 .2 .2 .6 1.7 3.5 6.5 7.4
L2RS60 .2 .2 1.2 3.7 6.9 7.3 6.8
L2RS40 .4 .3 3.0 6.9 7.1 5.5 4.6
L2RS20 .6 .8 4.0 6.7 4.9 3.4 2.5
L2LSOO 1.4 3.5 6.1 3.6 2.6 1.9 1.7
L2LS20 4.9 6.3 4.2 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.1
L2LS4O 6.1 4.4 2.6 1.4 1.1 .9 .9

L3RS8O .2 .2 .8 2.5 5.3 9.9 11.3
L3RS60 .3 .3 1.7 5.6 10.6 11.2 10.4
L3RS4O .4 .4 4.4 10.5 10.9 8.4 5.9
L3RS2O .9 1.0 9.9 10.4 6.3 4.4 3.8
L3LSOO 2.1 5.3 9.4 6.9 4.6 3.3 2.5
L3LS2O 7.5 9.6 5.1 3.3 2.5 1.9 1.7
LKS40 9.3 6.8 3.1 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.3

L4RS80 .3 .2 .9 3.2 7.0 13.3 15.2
L4RS60 .3 .3 2.2 7*'4 14.2 15.1 14.0
L4RS4O .5 .5 5.9 14.2 14.7 11.4 8.0
L4RS2O 1.0 1.4 8.2 13.9 10.2 7.0 5.0
L4LSOO 2.7 7.2 12.6 9.3 6.2 4.5 3.4
L4LS20 10.1 13.0 8.7 5.3 3.8 2.9 2.3
L4LS40 12.5 9.1 5.3. 3.4 2.6 2.1 1.8

L5RS80 .3 .5 .5 1.3 4.9 15.5 15.5
L5RS60 .3 .3 .5 3.1 15.0 14.5 10.4
L5RS40 .4 .5 1.7 15.1 13.1 7.9 4.9
L5RS20 .7 1.0 14.4 11.8 6.7 4.3 2.9
L5LSOO 1.5 8.5 13.1 5.7 3.5 2.4 1.7
L5LS20 11.6 13.6 8.1 2.9 1.9 1.4 1.2
L5LS4O 13.0 7.8 4.3 1.7 1.3 1.1 .9

FIGURE 7

SURGE PROFILE LANDFALLING HURRICANES E-C
0 U
S.- to
4-W
Ln C" ClQ en
0

Cl
Flagler Cm
Beach-

Ormond-
BY-The-Sea'-

Daytona Beach-

New Smyrna-
Beach[-

Mosquito
Lagoon-

Kennedy
Space Center-

Cape
Canaveral-

Melbourne-

Sebastian
Inlet-

Vero Beach-

Ln Ln 'n
(Feet ACove M.S.L.)

increases toward the north and is responsible for increasing the storm
surge height almost 3 feet for a Category 4 hurricane. The effect of the
shoaling factor is also evident in the values produced by storms
landfalling near Cape Canaveral. The extension of the Cape into open water
decreases the availability of shelf space, resulting in deeper water and
less of a slope. This tends to decrease the surge amplitude in the Cape's
vicinity.

As discussed earlier, a small storm size (12 statute miles radius of
maximum winds instead of 20 statute miles) was selected for the simulation
of all Category 5 hurricanes. As shown on Figure 7, the step increase in
surge heights from a Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 storm did not take place with
a Category 5 storm. This resulted in a Category 5 storm producing a surge
less than one foot higher than a comparable Category 4 storm. The
divergence from the expected step increase is due to the existence of a
critical storm size, for a given storm speed, that generates an upper
maximum surge. The size is generally thought to be a radius of maximum
winds of 30 miles. With all other storm parameters remaining constant, any
storm size greater or less than this results in a decreased surge value.
This explains why--when the storm speed is held constant--the surge values
for a Category 4 storm with a radius of maximum winds of 20 statute miles
were similar to the surge heights of a Category 5 storm having a radius of
maximum winds of 12 statute miles.

Pre-Landfall Hazard Times

In general, the build-up of the storm surge heights along the East Central
Florida coastline occurs gradually, followed by a rapid increase
immediately preceding eye landfall. Peak surge heights are reached
approximately at the time of landfall and then decrease rapidly.
Categories 1-5 hurricanes analyzed by the SPLASH II model showed the
arrival of significant surge heights to occur as follows:

Hours before Landfall

Category 1 1-2 hours
Category 2 2-3 hours
Category 3 3-4 hours
Category 4 4-5 hours
Category 5 3-4 hours

These times were based on the rise of the ocean surface to 4 feet above
MSL. It is assumed, due to the elevation of the coastline, that no
significant flooding would occur prior to the increase in these heights.

The other major output for the SPLASH 11 model consists of time histories
of wind speed for selected points along the coast. As with the time
histories of surges, the output affords a quantitative means of assessing
pre-eye landfall hazard times. Figure 8 graphically illustrates the

'w ful

c a j,
FIGURE 8

SPACE-TIME PLOT
'o c.
OF COASTAL WIND SPEED
ft c a It-
-4; v-11, "V
Ar LA ko a @x
4 ul A u,
oir
Category 4 Normal
Landfalling
4 ke W, lo-

J"
ci:
T
1: L; 1;
cl

ck
%r tr

Ni
ul tr
r:
cr 1: 1 r*

w C

a z 'n 4,

"v In cl, :r o

of, ,w-

1w
-c Q 'D UP Lr w v 4

Ir -c elf kr6l c4ra-
t

,A ln 'a z@'a al 4
'A, -j w w cl! 4 V%

fr
a a ls@ 0 o in A Ln
ru. o
w'@ W'iZ
. .. ?. :11
A a N - a @ .1 w a v
,, 'd, in a a ;v n a W wi ON fu fu tu fu rl@
IV a :dO
ew
.01
um c a
cr a a i* a

f4
.. . . . . . .. . . .
@rl ;@ -, & 'r 11
A
Ir 17

L ft
4lo a I ej o cr -o

4p w %r

rv
w

4r
A f%
ml .'%!

w w lu ca
w ca 41

1.2

relation of hurricane force winds and gale force winds to the hurricane
eye.

The analysis of the SPLASH II histories for landfalling hurricanes revealed
that sustained gale force winds could be expected to arrive at certain
points along the coast up to 11.5 hours before eye landfall. This is well
in advance of expected surge heights. For all storms modeled, the average
arrival time for gale force winds was 8 to 10 hours prior to landfall. A
Category 4 hurricane, because of its size, produces the earliest arrival of
these winds. A full description of the pre-eye landfall wind times for
each category of storm is provided in Table 6.

Exiting Hurricanes

Storm Surge

Like landfalling hurricanes, exiting storms generate surge profiles that
grow with time. However, as the storm is initially passing over land,
there is only limited time to form the storm surge in the vicinity of the
coast and, consequently, there is a lower potential to develop significant
surges at the coast.

The storm profile developed for exiting storms is provided in Figure 9. In
referring to the profile it can be noted that the peak surges are
substantially less than those produced by a landfalling storm. The maximum
surge height generated by a Category 3 exiting storm is only 5.8 feet.
Storms for categories 4 and 5 were not modeled, based on the assumption
that storms of this magnitude striking the west coast of Florida would be
of reduced intensity when reaching the east coast.

Pre-Landfall Hazard Time

With the smaller storm surge values associated with exiting storms, it is
expected that the arrival of significant storm surge heights would occur
almost simultaneously with the arrival of the storm center. The time
histories of surge heights provided by the SPLASH II model seem to bear
this out. These times are shown as follows:

Hours Before Arrival of Storm Center

Category 1 0
Category 2 0
Category 3 1-1.5

The analysis of the time histories of wind speeds for exiting storms
revealed that the arrival of sustained gale force winds for exiting storms
is similar to that of landfalling hurricanes. One importance difference,
howeverD is that a Category 3 exiting storm produces gale force winds at
the same time as a Category 4 landfalling storm--approximately 11.5 hours

TAB LE 6

HURRICANE HAZARDS FOR MODELED STORMS
Page I of 2

DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM GALE FOR;E WINDS HURRICANE FORqE WINDS
OF HURRICANE SURGE HEIGHT Extent lArrival Time* Extent Arrival Time*

NORClRS080 5.4 120 miles 6 40 miles 2.5
NORCIRS060 5.4 140 miles 6 40 miles 2.5
NORCIRS040 5.3 120 miles 6 60 mil:s 2.5
NORCIRS020 5.0 120 mil:s 6.5 40 mil s 3
NORClLSOOO 4.5 120 mil s 7 40 miles 2.5
NORClLS020 4.7 120 miles 6 40 miles 2.5
NORCILS040 4.5 140 miles 6.5 40 miles 2.6
NORClLS060 4.2 140 mil:s 6 --- ---
NORClLS080 3.6 160 mil s 6 --- ---

NORMS080 7.3 120 miles 7.5 60 miles 3
NORC2RS060 7.3 140 miles 7.5 60 miles 3
NORC2RS040 7.1 160 miles 7.5 60 mil:s 3.5
NORC2RS020 6,7 160 miles 8 - 60 mil s 3.5
NORC2LSOOO 6.0 160 miles 8 60 miles 3.5
NORMS020 6.3 160 miles 7.5 60 miles 3.5
NORC2LS040 6.1 160 miles 7.5 80 miles 3.5
NORMS060 5.6 160 miles 7.5 ---
NORC2LS080 4.8 160 miles 7.5 --- ---
N0RC2LSl0O 3.6 160 miles 7.5 --- ---

NORC3RS080 11.2 160 miles 9.5 100 miles 4.5
NORC3RS060 11.2 160 miles 9.5 100 miles 4.5
NORC3RS040 10.9 180 miles 9.5 140 miles 4.5
NORC3RS020 10.4 200 miles 10 100 miles 5
NORC3LSOOO 9.2 200 miles 10 100 miles
NORC3LS020 9.6 200 nd I es 9.5 100 miles 4.5
NORC3LS040 9.4 200 miles 9.5 100 miles '4.5
NOROLS060 8.6 220 miles 9.5 100 miles 4.5
NORC3LS080 7.4 240 miles 9.5
NOROLS100 5.5 220 miles 9.5 ---

NORMS080 15.1 180 miles 11 120 miles 5.5
NORMS060 15.0 180 miles 11 120 miles 5.5
NORC4RS040 14.7 200 m 11 140 miles 5.5
NORC4RS020 13.9 220 miles 11.5 120 miles 6
NORC4LSOOO 12.4 240 miles 11.5 120 miles 6
NORC4LS020 12.9 240 miles 11 120 miles 5.5
NORC4LS040 12.6 240 miles 11 120 mil:s 5.5
NORC4LS060 11.5 260 miles 11 120 mil s 5.5
NORC4LS080 10.0 240 miles 11 120 miles 5.5
NORC4LS100 7.2 240 miles 11.5 --- ---
NORC5RS080 14.3 140 miles 8.5 100 mil:s 4
NORC5RS060 15.0 160 miles 8.5 80 mil s 4
NORC5RS040 15.1 180 miles 8.5 100 miles 4
NORC5RS020 13.8 180 miles 8.5 80 miles 4.5
NORC5LS00O 13.1 180 miles 9 100 Mil s 4.5
NORCKS020 13.6 180 miles 8.5 80 mil:s 4
NORMS040 13.0 180 miles 8.5 80 miles 4.5
NORCKS060 12.4 200 miles 8 100 miles 4
NORCKS080 9.1 200 miles 8 ---
NORC5LSIOO 6.9 200 miles 8.5

CRSClRS080 2.7 140 miles 6.5 40 miles 2.5
CRSCIRS060 2.6 140 mil:ss 7 40 miles 2.5
CRSCIRS040 2.6 140 mil 7.5 40 miles 3.5
CRSClRS020 2.4 140 miles 7.S 40 miles 3.6
CRSClLSOOO 2.4 140 miles 6.5 60 miles 2.5
CRSCILS020 2.4 140 mil:s 6.5 40 miles 2.5
CRSC)LS040 2.2 160 mil s 7 ---
CRSClLS060 2.1 160 miles 7.5 ---

*number of hours before eye landfall 31

TABLE 6 (cont.)

Page 2 of 2
DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM 1ALE FORCE WINDS HURRICANE FORCE WINDS
OF HURRICANE SURGE HEIGHT Extent jArrival Time* Extent Arrival Time

CRSC2RS080 3.7 160 miles 7.5 60 miles 3.5
CRSC2RS06O 3.7 180 miles 8.5 60 miles 3.5
CRSC2RS04O 3.6 160 miles 9 80 mil s 4.5
CRSC2RSO2O 3.4 160 miles 8.5 80 mil:s 4.5
CRSC2LSOOO 3.3 160 miles 8 60 miles 3.5
CRSC2LSO2O 3.3 160 miles 8 60 mil:s 3.5
CRSC2LS04O 3.1 200 miles 8.5 60 mil s 3.5
CRSC2LSO6O 2.9 200 miles 9.5 ... ---
CRSC2LSO8O 2.7 200 miles 11 ---

CRSC3RS08O 6.0 180 miles 10 100 miles 4.5
CRSC3RS06O 5.9 200 miles 10.5 100 miles 5
CRSC3RSO4O 5.8 220 miles 11 100 miles 5.5
CRSC3RSO2O 5.4 240 miles 10.5 100 miles 5.5
CRSC3LSOOO 5.3 220 miles 10 100 miles 5
CRSC3LSO2O 5.2 240 miles 10 100 miles 5
CRSC3LSO4O 4.9 240 miles 11.5 100 miles 5
CRSC3LSO6O 4.6 240 miles 13 100 miles 5
CRSC3LSO8O 4.2 220 mi I es 14 --- ---
CRSC3LS1OO 3.1 200 miles 14 ---

Max. Wind
Speed

PARCIRS060 1.2 / 49 mph 60 miles 1
PARCIRS040 2.0 / 65 mph 100 miles 3 --- ---
PARClRS020 3.1 / 79 mph 120 miles 4.5 --- ...
PARClLSOOO 3.0 / 85 mph 140 miles 5.5 20 miles 2
PARCILS020 2.4 / 85 mph 140 miles 5.5 2

PARC2RSO60 1.5 / 59 mph 100 miles 2.5 ---
PARC2RSO40 2.8 / 77 mph 120 miles 4 --- ---
PARC2RSO20 4.2 / 92 mph 140 miles 5.5 40 miles 1
PARC2LSOOO 4.3 / 98 mph 160 miles 6 80 miles 2
PARC2LSO2O 3.3 / 98 mph 160 miles 7 80 miles 3

PARC3RSO6O 2.5 / 74 mph 160 miles 5
PARC3RSO40 4.4 / 97 mph 120 miles 6 60 miles 1*5
PARC3RS020 6.7 / 108 mph 200 miles 7.5 80 miles 2.5
PARC3LSOOO 6.9 / 120 mph 220 miles 8 100 miles 3.5
PARC3LSO2O 5.1 / 120 mph 220 miles 9 100 miles 4
PARC4RSO40 6.0 / 115 mph 200 miles 8 80 miles 2
PARC4RSO60 3.4 / 87 mph 200 miles 7 40 miles with storm
I penter arrival
PARC5RS060 1.9 / 73 mph 120 miles 4 --- ---

*number of hours before eye landfall 32

FIGURE 9
SURGE PROFILE CROSSING/EXITING HURRICANES 0 U
S_
4-
ca

0
&_
1-a 1-j pz
mi ai

CD
FlagTer-
Beach

Ormond-
BY-The-Sea

Q
CD
Daytona Beach

New Smyrna
Beach'

Mosquito
Lagoon-

Kennedy C)
Space Center-

Cape
Canaveral-

Melbourne-

C)
Sebastian r4
Inlet-

Vero Beach-

(Feet Above M.L.S)

prior to the arrival of'the storm's eye. This step increase in the times
also holds true for Category I and 2 exiting storms. The arrival of gale
force winds will occur at approximately the same time as Category 2 and 3
landfalling storms. This may be explained by the decrease in the storms'
intensity as they cross land. It is assumed that a Category 3 exiting
storm began as a Category 4 storm on the west coast. While the intensity
of the hurricane was reduced by crossing land, the size of the storm--or,
more specifically, the maximum extent of its winds--was not reduced. it
would appear reasonable, then, that gale force winds sho(O-darrive earlier
than would be normally expected for a Category 3 storm.

The times of arrival for gale force winds are shown in the table below:

Hours Before Arrival of Storm Center

Category 1 6-7.5
Category 2 5-9
Category 3 7-11

Additional information on the winds produced by exiting storms is provided
in Table 6.

Paralleling Hurricanes

Storm Surge

A paralleling storm generates a smaller surge in comparison to a
landfalling storm. However, because the storm moves along shore, hundreds
of miles of coastline may be affected. Figure 10 presents a surge profile
for a paralleling storm moving north, 20 miles inland. As can be noted,
the peak surge values produced along the coast are similar to those of the
exiting storms modeled by SPLASH II. A noticeable difference in the surge
heights around the Cape Canaveral area occurs, which decreases for each
category of storm. As mentioned previously, this is due to the decrease in
the continental shelf width off the Cape.

For a paralleling storm moving along the coast, as shown in Figure 11, the
surge heights increase slightly but still remain well below those
experienced by a landfalling storm. Once again, the Cape mitigates the
surge produced in its vicinity.

As paralleling storms move off the coast, the surge heights decrease. These
are shown in figures 12 through 14, which illustrate expected peak surge
heights for hurricanes 20, 40, and 60 miles offshore.

The SPLASH II model computations are only valid along the open coast. That
is, the model is not able to predict what storm surge heights may be
expected within the tidal rivers or basins for the various storms modeled.
It is important that this limitation be noted, for a major storm

FIGURE 10
SURGE PROFILE PARALLELING HURRICANE: 20 MILES INLAND
E
0 u

4- Q)
C93

(V 0

4.M CJ C-i

Fla A 01
gler. C4
Beach

Ormond -
By-The-Sea-1,
Daytona Beach

New Smyrna
Beach"

Cp
Go

Mosquito
Lagoon-

Kennedy_
Space Center

Cape
Canaveral-

Melbourne-

01
Sebastian
Inlet-

Vero Beach, C1

Ln 1 Ln r
(.Fee-t4 Above M.S.C.)

FIGURE 11
SURGE PROFILE PARALLELING HURRICANE: ON COASTLINE

4- a)

a)0

fj Cj
Flagler C)
C4
Beach-

Ormond-
BY-The-Sea-

Daytona Beach-

New Smyrna
Beach

Mosquito
Lagoon-

Kennedy
Space Center-

Cape
Canaveral-

Melbourne.-

Sebastian
Inlet -

Vero Beach,

Ln Ln _T_T__T__T_
(.Ft. Zbove M.S.L.)

FIGURE 12
SURGE PROFILE PARALLELING HURRICANE.: 20 MILES OFFSHORE

010

Flagler
Beach-

Ormond-_
By-The-Sea

CD
Daytona Beach

New Smyrna
Beach-

Mosquito
Lagoon-

Kennedy
Space Center-

Cape
Canaveral-

Melbourne-

Sebastian C4
Inlet-

Vero Beach-

r
(Feet Above M.S.L.)

.37

FIGURE 13
SURGE PROFILE PARALLELING HURRICANE: 40 MILES OFFSHORE

Flagler CD
Beach-

Ormond-
By-The-Sea-

Daytona Beach,-

New Smyrna
Beach--

co
Mosquito
Lagoon-
Kennedy C)
Space Center-

Cape
Canaveral-

Melbourne-

Sebastian
Inlet-

Vero Beach,-

Ln Ln CD
(FeeCAbove M.S.L.)

FIGURE 14
SURGE PROFILE PARALLELING HURRICANE: 60 MILES OFFSHORE

Flagler
Beach-

Ormond-
By-The-Seal-

Daytona Beach-

New Smyrna
Beach[-

.Mosquito
Lagoon-

Kennedy
Space Center-

Cape
Canaveral-

Melbourne-

Sebastian
Inlet-

Vero Beach.-

C3
LA
r4
(Feet Above M.S.L.)

.39

paralleling the coastline may produce surge heights in excess of those
computed along the coast.

The increased surge heights within the tidal rivers are the results of
winds produced from predominantly one direction for an extended period of
time. A storm paralleling the Florida coastline produces northwesterly
winds over the rivers for its entire track, causing the waters to be pushed
along with it. This is known as a "tilted sea" and can occur in any closed
or partially closed basin. This effect may be most notable in the northern
reaches of the Indian and Banana rivers.

Pre-Landfall Hazard Times

For any given paralleling track, the arrival of the storm-generated surge
will occurV on the average, approximately 2.0 hours before arrival of the
storm center. This figure varies, depending on the category of storm
considered but, on the average, is similar to the time histories of other
stormns. The table below summarizes the expected arrival time of
significant surge heights by category:

Hours Before Arrival of Storm Center

Category 1 .0.5
Category 2 1.0-1.5
Category 3 2.0-2.5
Category 4 2.5-3.0
Category 5 2.5-3.0

The time histories of arrival of gale force winds are provided in Table 6
and, as with other movements, arrive well in advance of the storm surge.

VULNERABILITY ELEMENT

INTRODUCTION

In the previous section, the hurricane hazards that may adversely impact
the coastal areas of East Central Florida were identified and analyzed.
This section will identify the areas of the region subject to the effects
of those hazards. Included as part of this section are: methodology used
in the identification of vulnerable areas; delineation of evacuation zones;
identification of vulnerable geographic areas; and an estimation of the
population-at-risk.

METHODOLOGY

The identification of the areas of the region vulnerable to a hurricane's
storm surge is the most important criterion for determining those residents
who must evacuate from various hypothetical hurricanes. As stated
previously, the results from the SPLASH Il model provided the primary data
by which these areas could be identified. This model produced peak surge
values that could then be compared to the elevations of the land mass.

As the SPLASH 11 model only produced such values along the open coast, a
major limitation confronted in the use of the model was the lack of surge
ffheight data for inland areas. This resulted in not having a clear
indication of those inland areas to be flooded and also an absence of
information on the effects of each hypothetical hurricane on the region's
inlets and saltwater tide basins. To correct this deficiency, a number of
other sources were utilized in the vulnerability analysis. These included:

o National Ocean Survey Storm Evacuation maps
o Federal Emergency Management Administration Flood Insurance rate maps
o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Plain Information (Volusia Co.)
o Past histories of storm surge inundations for Brevard and Volusia
counties

The application of the storm surge values to inland areas was completed
with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The engineering
judgment provided by the Corps engineers allowed for a reasonable
prediction of the potential flooding that may be expected to occur for each
category of storm.

Due to the limitations of the SPLASH II model in regard to inland flooding,
identification of a threshold level which would require residents to
evacuate was not appropriate. While the importance of not requiring
residents in structurally sound homes experiencing only minimal amounts of
flooding to evacuate is recognized, an accurate determination of these
areas was not possible through the model. However, due to the small area
in each county that would be required to evacuate and the short distance

required to travel to safety, the impact of persons on the outer edges of
vulnerable areas not needing to evacuate is expected to be minimal.

LEVELS OF VULNERABILITY

Prior to the delineation of threatened areas, two major changes were made
with regard to the identified levels of vulnerability in the study area.
First, the five Saffir-Simpson categories of storms used during the
modeling phase of the study were collapsed into two ranges for both Brevard
and Volusia counties. This was done recognizing the similarities of storm
surge heights for different intensities of storms and realizing the manner
in which storms may change intensity over time. For both Brevard and
Volusia counties, storms were grouped into Category 1-2 or Category 3-5.

The second change to the vulnerability levels involved development of a
level of threat concept for the study area. In reviewing the storm surge
heights expected along the coastline for a particular storm, it is apparent
that a storm event does not represent the same level of threat to every
area on the coast. For instance, a category 3-5 storm landfalling at
Melbourne may produce a 13.0-foot surge in that area, while producing only
a 3.0-foot surge in Daytona Beach. To accommodate the range of surge
heights that may be experienced by different areas from the same storm, it
was necessary to use a standard measure based upon the height of the storm
surge rather than category of storm. The correlation of category of
hurricane to level of threat is shown below. This measure of hurricane
threat is applied throughout the following chapters of the technical data
report.

TABLE 7

Category of Hurricane/Level of Threat
Conversion Table

Saffir-Simpson
Category Storm Surge Level of Threat

1-2 3-8 ft. above MSL A

3-5 9-15+ ft. above MSL B

EVACUATION ZONES

Development of evacuation zones is an essential element of the Hurricane
Evacuation Study. By grouping areas of a county into zones, a particular
area will be able to be identified as receiving a common level of storm
surge and as using the same major evacuation route. Delineating zones will
also allow residents to identify the zone in which they live, thereby
assisting in the effort to inform residents of their immediate
vulnerability to a storm and elicit the appropriate response.

The delineation of evacuation zones was based on the Urbanized Area
Transportation Study Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) which have been
established throughout the two-county study area. The extent of the area
to be evacuated for each storm situation and the boundaries of each
evacuation zone were determined by clustering TAZ's which would receive a
common level of flooding. In combining TAZ's, consideration was also given
to population densities and locations in relation to major east-west
arterials.

Table 8 presents a listing of evacuation zones for Brevard and Volusia
counties and their corresponding urban area traffic analysis zones.
Although efforts were made to include entire TAZ's into an evacuation zone,
this was not always possible due to major differences between the simulated
flood limits and zonal boundaries. A traffic analysis zone may therefore
be listed beside more than one evacuation zone number, indicating a split
TAZ. In addition, for Volusia County, TAZ's were only available for the
coastal area. Therefore, in delineating evacuation zones for the inland
portion of that county, census tract boundaries were used.

Table 9 provides a description of the geographic limits of each evacuation
zone for the two counties. These limits generally follow widely
recognizable streets, highways, or unique geographic features.

The vulnerability analysis resulted in the delineation of the study area
into 19 zones in Brevard County and 43 zones in Volusia County which would
require total evacuation under certain scenarios. Within the remaining
evacuation zones, all mobile home residents would be required to evacuate
for any type or intensity of storm approaching the coast.

The evacuation zones are graphically depicted in the series of maps which
follow. The maps also identify the predicted extent of evacuation for each
level of threat based on the surge vulnerability analysis. The extent of
evacuation required from a hurricane creating Level-of-Threat A is covered
by a common color on each of the maps. Level-of-Threat B cumulatively
includes the lesser-intensity colored areas indicated by the map legend.

TABLE 8

Evacuation Zones - Traffic Analysis Zones
Equivalency Chart

Brevard 'County

Evacuation Zone Urban Area Traffic Analysis Zone

BI 311, 312, 313, 314, 315. 323. 336
82 324, 325. 326, j38, 340, 341. 342, 343

B3 088, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173. 174, 175, 176.
177, 178. 179. 180, 181, 210, 220. 223

B4 166, 167

85 160, 161, 162, 163, 168, 169, 170. 183.

B6 085, 159

B7 230, 235. 236, 237, 296, 298, 299, 318, 319, 322, 328
335

B8 253, 254, 297, 316, 320, 321

B9 222, 252, 310, 328, 327, 329, 330, 331, 334

BIO 199, 200

B11 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014,
015, 017, 018, 019, 021. 022, 023, 024, 026, 027,
028, 029, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038,
039, 040. 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 048,
049
B12 001', 003, 004, 011, 014
B13 001, 003, 004, 011, 061

B14 031. 032, 033, 034. 035

B15 050, 051, 232, 233, 234, 238, 239, 240, 332

B16 051, 232, 234, 238

817 224, 225, 244, 245. 246, 247. 248, 249, 251, 257,
258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 265, 266, 267, 279,
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289.
290. 291, 292, 293, 294, 295

B18 224, 244, 263, 280, 282, 283, 284, 291, 292, 295

819 097, 098, 099, 100, 102, 102, 108, 218

B20 098, 099, 108

821 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113.
114, 115, 116. 117, 118, 119. 120, 121, 124, 130,
204, 207

B22 109, 110, 111, 112, 130

TABLE 8 (cont.)

B23 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133,
134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144,
145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154,
155, 182, 194

B24 131, 132, 138, 147, 152, 153, 155

B25 156, 157, 158

B26 156, 157, 158

B27 006, 007, 008, 053, 054, 068, 081, 903, 1009

B28 096, 226, 227, 228, 229, 250, 264

829 086, 089, 091, 092, 093, 094, 095, 185, 197, 198,
310, 902

TABLE 8 (cont.)

Evacuati,on Zones - Traffic Analysis Zones
Equivalency Chart

Volusia County

Evacuation Zone Urban Area Traffic Analysis Zone

VI 001, 002, 003, 004, 006, 007. 008, 011, 012, 013, 015

V2 001, 002, 003, 004, 005. 007, 009, 010. 012, 013, 014

V3 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 007. 009, 010. 012, 013, 014

V4 016, 020, 021. 028, 033

V5 017, 018, 019, 020, 023, 024, 026, 027, 029, 032

V6 017, 018, 019, 025, 027. 030, 031

V7 035, 041, 043

V8 034, 036, 039, 040, 042, 043

V9 037, 038. 044

V10 U45, 049, 05U, 054, 055

Vil 046. 048, 051, 053, 055

V12 047, 048. 051, 052, 055

V13 057. 060. 061, 062, 063

V14 057, 060, 061, 062. 063

VIS 056, 058. 059, 061, 062. 063

V16 087, 088, 089, 107, 110

V17 082, 083, 087. 088, 089. 090. 092, 107, 108

V18 111, 113, 114, 116, 117, 120, 138, 139

V19 117, 120, 137

V20 161, 162, 163. 164. 165, 166, 167

V21 137, 160, 170

V22 185

V23 168, 169, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 203

V24 185, 188. 189, 192, 201, 202

V25 204, 209, 210

V26 204, 209, 210, 212

V27 214, 216

V28 078, 079, 080, 082, 083, 084, 085, 086, 091, 092, 093,
094, 095, 096, 097

V29 087, 088, 089, 107, 108, 109, 110

TABLE 8 (cont.)

V30 098, 099, 100, 101, 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 111,
112 113 114, 115. 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122,
123: 124: 125, 126. 127. 128, 129, 130. 131, 132, 133.
134 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146.
147: 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157.
158, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177,
178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 189, 193, 194, 195,
196, 198, 199, 200, 283

V31 197, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211. 212, 213, 215, 216, 217

V32 064, 066, 067

V33 064, 065, 068, 069

V34 064, 065, 069, 225

V35 070, 071, 074, 075

V36 071, 074, 075

V37 072. 073, 075

V38 076, 077, 286, 289

V39 218. 219, 222, 223

V40 220

V41 221

V42 223, 224, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 284

V43 226, 227, 245, 246, 251, 285

V44 226, 227, 245, 246, 251, 285

V45 252, 258, 288, 2B9

V46 252, 258, 288, 289

V47 228, 229, 230

V48 238

V49 226 227 236, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243. 244, 247,
248: 249: 250, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 259, 285, 287

Evacuation Zone Census Tract

V50 832

V51 901

V52 902, 907

V53 903

V54 904, 905, 906

V55 908 -

V56 910

V57 909

TABLE 9

EVACUATION ZONE BOUNDARIES

Brevard County_

Evacuation Zone Zone Description

81 From Port Canaveral southward to SR 520.

B2 From SR 520 southward to northern limits of Patrick AFB.

B3 From northern limits of Patrick AFB to Yacht Club Blvd.

B4 From Yacht Club Blvd. southward to Pinetree Dr.

B5 From Pinetree Dr. to unincorporated Floridana Beach.

86 From southern limits of unincorporated Floridana Beach southward to
Sebastian Inlet.

87 From southern limits of Kennedy Space Center to SR 520; East of Indian
River and west of Banana River, excluding that portion contained in
Evacuation Zone B8.

B8 From SR 524 southward to SR 520; East of SR 3 and west of Sykes Creek.

89 From SR 520 southward to Leslie Dr.

B10 From Leslie Dr. southward to tip of Merritt Island.

B12 From northern limits of Brevard County southward to US 1; East of
Barcelona Dr. and west of SCL railroad.

813 From northern limits of Brevard County southwaH to SR 402; East of
SCL railroad.

B14 From SR 402 southward to NASA Cswy.; East of US 1.

816 From NASA Cswy. southward to SR 528; East of US 1.

B18 From SR 528 southward to Wickham Rd.; East of US 1.

B20 From Wickham Rd. southward to Parkway Dr.; East of US 1.

B22 From Parkway Dr. to intersection of NASA Blvd. and US I (those areas
east of US 1).

B24 From intersection of NASA Blvd. and US 1 southward to southern limits
of Malabar.

B26 From southern limits of Malabar to southern boundary of Brevard Couhty.

TABLE 9 (cont.)

EVACUATION ZONE BOUNDARIES

Volusia County

Evacuation Zone Zone Description

North Coastal Area

V1 From the northern limits of Volusia County southward to Bosarvey Dr.;
East of Ocean Shore Blvd. (AIA)

V2 From the northern limits of Volusia County southward to Bosarvey Or.;
East of John Anderson Hwy. and west of Ocean Shore Blvdi (AlA)

V3 From the northern limits of Volusla County southward to Willis Ln.;
West of John Anderson Hwy.

V4 From Bosarvey Dr. southward to Oak Ridge Blvd.; East of AIA.

V5 From Bosarvey Dr. southward to Seabreeze Blvd.; East of Peninsula Dr.
and west of AM

V6 From Willis Ln. southward to Seabreeze Blvd.; East of Halifax River
and west of Peninsula Dr.

V7 From Seabreeze Blvd. southward to Silver Beach Ave.; East of Halifax
River and west of Halifax Ave. (or Peninsula Dr. at southern one-third
of zone)

V8 From Seabreeze Blvd. southward to Silver Beach Ave.; East of Halifax
(or Peninsula Dr.) and west of Atlantic Ave. (AIA)

V9 From Oak Ridge Blvd. southward to Silver Beach Ave.; East of AIA.

V10 From Silver Beach Ave. southward to Lantana St.; East of AIA.

Vil From Silver Beach Ave. southward to Lantana St.; East of Peninsula Dr.
and west of AIA.

V12 From Silver Beach Ave. southward to Lantana St.; East of Halifax River
and west of Peninsula Dr.

V13 From Lantana St. southward to Ponce De Leon Inlet; East of Halifax
River and west of Peninsula Dr.

V14 From Lantana St. southward to Ponce De Leon Inlet; East of Peninsula
Dr. and west of AM

V15 From Lantana St. southward to Ponce De Leon Inlet; East of AM

V16 From Tomoka State Park northern boundary southward to Division Ave.;
East of N. Beach St.

V17 From Old Dixie Hwy. southward to SR 40; East of US I and SR 5A; West of
the Tomoka River tributary.

V18 From Division Ave. southward to Fairview Ave.; East of S. Beach St. or
Riverside Dr.

V19 From Ilth St. southward to Fairview Ave.; East of Daytona Ave. and
west of Riverside Dr.

V20 From Fairview Ave. southward to Orange Ave.; East of Daytona Ave. or
Palmetto Ave.

V21 From Fairview Ave. southward to San Juan Ave.; East of Ridgewood Ave.
and west of Daytona Ave. or Palmetto Ave.

V22 From San Juan Ave. southward to Loomis Ave.; East of Ridgewood Ave.
and west of Palmetto Ave.

TABLE 9 (cont.)

V23 From Orange Ave. southward to Canal Rd.; East of Palmetto Ave. or,
Ridgewood Ave.

V24 From Loomis Ave. southward to Canal Rd.; East of Ridgewood Ave. or
FEC RR line and west of Palmetto Ave. or Ridgewood Ave.
V25 From Canal Rd. southward to Fleming Ave.; East of FEC RR line and west
of Lafayette Ave.

V26 From Canal Rd. southward to Commonwealth Blvd.; East of Lafayette Ave.

V27 From Commonwealth Blvd. southward to Turnbull Bay; East of US 1.

South Coastal Area

V32 From Ponce De Leon Inlet southward to 5th Ave.; East of N. Atlantic Ave

V33 From Surf St. southward to E. 3rd Ave.; East of Peninsula Ave. and west
of N. Atlantic Ave.

V34 From Ocean Dr. southward to E. 3rd Ave.; East of Riverside Dr. and*west
of Peninsula Ave.

V35 From E. 3rd Ave. southward to Hillside Dr.; East of Indian River and
west of Saxon Dr.

V36 From E. 3rd Ave. southward to Hillside Dr.; East of Saxon Dr. and west
of S. Atlantic Ave. (AlA)

V37 From 5th Ave. southward to Hillside Dr.; East of S. Atlantic Ave.
(A1A)

V38 From Hillside Dr. southward to Canaveral Nat). Seashore.

V39 From Spruce Creek/Strickland Bay southward to Columbia St.; East of
Robinson St. and west of Indian River. excluding Evacuation Zones 40,
41, and 42.

V40 From Turnbull St. southward to South St.; East of Turnbull Creek and
west of US 1.

V41 New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport.

V42 From FEC RR and Columbia St. southward to Canal St.; East of Glencoe
Rd. and west of US 1 and Faulkner St.

V43 From Canal St. southward to Indian River Blvd.; East of Live Oak St.
and US I and west of Magnolia Ave. and Riverside Dr.

V44 From Canal St. southward to Indian River Blvd.; East of Magnolia Ave.
and Riverside Dr.

V45 From Indian River Blvd. southward to junction of US I and AIA; East of
US 1 and west of Riverside Dr.

V46 From Indian River Blvd. southward to southern limits of Volusia County;
East of Riverside Dr. and AlA.

POPULATION-AT-RISK

In order to calculate the times required to evacuate those areas identified
as vulnerable, as well as determine resources needed in an evacuation, an
estimation of the threatened population must be made. It is also necessary
to enumerate all mobile home residents throughout the study area, even in
areas not vulnerable to storm surge, because they must evacuate from
hurricane force winds.

Dwelling unit and population counts by traffic analysis zone, where
applicable, were obtained from the county planning departments in the study
area. As evacuation zones were generally composed of clusters of TAZ's,
the appropriate TAZ counts were added, to result in the total population
and dwelling units for each evacuation zone. Where TAZ's were split,
census block data were used to arrive at the appropriate count. The
population residing in each evacuation zone is presented in tables 10 and
11.

It should be noted that the population figures presented in these tables
exclude two major groupings. First, the tourist populations residing in
hotels/motels or condominiums were excluded from the count under the
assumption that they would elect to leave the area well in advance of an
evacuation. They would therefore not place a demand on the transportation
system or public shelter facilities in the immediate area. Secondly,
military personnel at Patrick Air Force Base were also excluded, due to
their planned advance evacuation of the area.

TABLE 10

Population & Vehicle Productions
By Evacuation Zone & Destination

Brevard County

Population Vehicles
Zone Cat. 1 2 3A 3B 4 1 2 3A_ 3B - 4

BI 11*"12 8,684 1,963 1,945 1,737 3,039 4,559 1,031 1,021 912 1,595
B2 1-2 10,006 2,261 2,421 2,001 3,502 5,253 1,187 1,177 1,051 1,838
B3 1-2 22,099 4,994 4,950 4,420 7,735 11,602 2,621 2,599 2,321 4,061
B4 1-2 13,136 2,969 2,942 2,627 4,598 6,896 1,559 1,545 1,379 2,413
B5 1-2 6,985 1,579 1,565 1,397 2,445 3,667 829 822 733 1,283
B6 1-2 690 156 155 138 242 363 82 81 72 128

B7 1-2 15,407 3,482 3,452 3,081 5,392 8,089 1,828 1,812 1,618 2,831
B8 3-5 7,250 1,639 1,624 1,450 2,537 3,806 860 853 761 1,332
B9 1-2 11,104 2,509 2,487 2,221 3,886 5,830 1,317 1,306 1,166 2,041
B10 1-2 1,107 250 249 221 387 581 131 131 116 203
Bll WIND 2,082 470 466 416 729 1.093 247 245 218 383
B12 3-5 59 13 13 12 21 31 7 7 6 11
B13 1-2 162 37 36 32 57 85 19 19 17 30
B14 1-2 1,483 335 332 297 519 779 176 174 156 272
B15 WIND 1,609 364 360 322 563 845 191 189 169 296
B16 1-2 964 218 216 193 @337 506 114 114 101 177
B17 WIND 1,852 419 415 370 648 972 220 218 194 340
B18 1-2 4,813 1,088 1,078 963 1,685 2,527 571 566 505 885
B19 WIND 868 196 194 174 304 456 103 102 160
B20 1-2 172 39 39 34 60 90 20 20 18 32
B21 WIND 1,949 440 437 390 682 1,023 231 229 205 358
B22 1-2 1,912 432 428 382 669 1,004 227 225 201 351
B23 WIND 4,305 973 965 861 1,507 2,260 511 507 452 790
B24 1-2 2,489 563 558 498 871 1,307 296 293 261 457
B25 WIND 3,739 845 838 748 1,309 1,963 444 440 393 686
B26 1-2 430 97 96 86 151 226 51 51 45 79
B27 WIND 42 9 9 8 15 22 5 5 4 8
B28 WIND 123 28 28 25 43 65 15 15 13 22
B29 WIND 76 17 17 15 27 40 9 9 8 14

Key: I = Total
2 = Public Shelter
3 = Friend/Relative (a--in county; b--out of county)
4 = Hotel/Motel

TABLE 11

Population & Vehicle Productions
By Evacuation Zone & Destination

Volusia County

Population Vehictes
ZONE CAT. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
V1 1-2 811 183 344 284 368 83 156 129
V2 3-5 10,510 2,375 4$1'456 3,679 4,765 1,077 2,020 1,668
V3 1-2 536 121 227 188 243 55 103 85
V4 1-2 901 204 382 315 409 185 173 143
V5 3-5 7s915 1,789 3,356 2,770 3,589 811 1,522 1,256
V6 1-2 1,425 322 604 499 646 146 274 226
V7 1-2 1,129 255 479 395 512 116 217 179
V8 3-5 4,535 IsO25 1,923 1,587 2,056 465
V9 872 719
1-2 218 50 92 76 99 23 42 34
vio 1-2 584 132 248 204 265 60 112 92
Vil 3-5 2,199 497 932 770 997 225 423 349
V12 1-2 lsl4l 258 484 399 517 117 219 181
V13 1-2 1,113 251 472 390 505 114 214 177
V14 3-5 2,109 07 894 738 956 216 405 335
V15 1.-.2 894 202 379 313 405 91 172 142
V16 1-2 578 131 245 202 262 59
V17 ill 92
3-5 3,412 771 1,447 1,194 ls547 350 656 541
V18 1-2 433 98 184 151 196 45 83 68
V19 3-5 ls709 386 725 598 775 175 329 271
V20 1-2 154 35 65 54 70 16 30 24
V21 3-5 859 194 364 301 389 88 165 136
V22 3-5 2,468 558 1,046 864 1,119 253 474 392
V23 1-2 4,491 1,015 1,904 1,572 2,036 460 863 713
V24 3-5 794 179 337 278 360 81 153 126
V25 3-5 0 0 0 0
V26 0 0 0 0
1-2 1,533 346 650 537 695 157 295 243
V27 1-2 1,201' 271 509 421 545 123 231 191
V28 WIND .520 118 220 182 236 53 100 93
V29 WIND 340 77 144 119 154 35 65 54
V30 WIND 7,342 1,659 3,113 2,570 3,329 752 1,412 1,165
V31 WIND 6,905 1,560 2,928 2,417 3,131 707 1,328 1,096
V32 1-2 387 87 165 135 175 39 75 61
V33 3-5 2,006 453 851 702 909 205 386 318
V34 1-2 1,032 233 438 361 468, 106 198 164
V35 1-2 582 132 247 204 264 60 112 92
Key: I = Total
2 = Public Shelter
3 = Friend/Relative
4 = Hotel/Motel

TABLE 11 (cont.)

P6pulation Vehicles
ZONE CAT. 1 2 3 4 1 4

V36 3-5 1,881 425 J98 658 853 193 362 298-
V37 1-2 226 51 96 79 102 23 43 36
V38 1-2 307 69 131 107 139 31 59 49
V39 1-2 528 119 224 185 239 54 101 84
V40 3-5 880 199 373 308 399 90 169 140
V41 3-5* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V42 3-:5 7,199 1,627 3,052 2,520 3,264 738 1 .384 1,142
V43 3-5 1,737 393 736 608 788 178 334 276
V44 1-2 459 104 194 161 208 47 88 73
V45 3-5 1,568 354 665 549 711 160 302 249
V46 1-2 545 123 231 191 56 105 86

V47 WIND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V48 3-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V49 WIND 2,591 586 1,098 907 1,175 266 498 411

V50 WIND 129 29 55 45 58 13 25 20
V51 WIND 488 110 207 171 221 50 94 77
V52 WIND 1,540 348 653 539 698 158 296 244
V53 WIND 966 219 409 338 438 99 186 153
V54 WIND 82 19 34 29 37 9 is 13
V55 WIND 3,539 800 1,500 .1,239 1,605 363 680 562
V56 WIND 870 197 369 304 394 89 167 138
V57 WIND 841 190 357 294 381 86 162 133

Key: I Total
2 Public Shelter 22.63
3 Fr./Rel. 42.43
4 Hot/Mot 35.0

SECTION

NORTH
U52
U53
uso RUM 2

Z,
U56

DPEVAAD

RUN 3

@w o
D27

323

LEM 9p=
Do E M I .
Z

uj -@/.j

AIA

C01-1

SECTION I

SCALE: 1" 2 @@JLES
LEGEND
MCUATION ZONES
woftA @@k' IBM LEYEL OF URRY A
BASIN
LEUR OF UREAT 9
k RACUATIN ROUTES

U28
Uls

D ST,

!,2
AVE.
PLAZA R@
HAP

IMP,

PLAZA 'Luo'

EUCLID VE,

TY BLVD,
UNIVE

OLM

MAIN S

BROAD Y

21 ACH

V30

uyZ

\16 ulo
ul

X@23

AL 9

U25 DUN tNTON AVE.

SECTIR 2
UU, "MORM ME
L@U\j
0@

Ilk

SCM: 1" 2 @MES
LEGEND
NES
ts
LEUR CV YMEhf h
cv TM
If -'s
QcTi-

lk
/* - -
TRINISUL Ali[
,-47--

RAGL AIJ 1,

U37
U43

U49
I'v
A

K k

;IXY

SECTION 3

RUE: I" - 2 2*LES
LEGEND

MH OF RIM), 9
MOW
BREVARD
CUUM

LIONEL

B
ET
ROCK

Dil

ARAE

SA PAR H
LAU
LUHb
JA
TIGER
DAIRY

LAKE CA DEN
TROPIC
1,6

sou

405

FOX LK

SECTION 4

CPA[

oil

SCRE: I" - 2 NILES

NASA PKWY. f
LEVEL OV YMUHT h
YORM 3
LEVEL
2CUTES

T1Cb

CS HWY. P* IsL'AL5

A t@sm

FAY

CAMP
tit

S"ARPES
OLD
CANAVERAL CROVIS
1 -16 -Us

JAMES
28
I Ju

RAYBURN

jig,
OSENTINE
ol

DIXON
2 4 F E N N E p
"RE ITT (7-
ME ScHoo
Ipm ETT
PLUCIEBAUM N F

E
it V
BARTON

LEVITT

uu@ Hirr
SECTION 5
BARNES
ul@"UlllMXUvv ME

,NX

2 N
SCUE: I" - , ILES

NES
MCUATIO"l ZO,
LIM OF TMUT h
LEUR OF EMU a
MCUUM ROMS
WICKHAM @.o
-----------------

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

POST

TARKWAY
pi
a
LAKE WASHINGTON

AURORA

nONTR AL
321 k

SARNO
34

ELLIS
NASA

NASA
WERIDAN
SR HIBISCUS

EAU CALLIE
IEDGE
I HENRY WOOD
AN
D23
UNIVERSIly

29 FLORIDA

IV,

PALM BAY

SECTION G
U L PORT MALAG R
TIL17MAN CANAL

B23

HALL
D Is

SCM: 1" 2 @ALES
LEGEND
WACO EVACUATION ZONES
LEVEL OF Tt
LEVEL OF TOREAT 0
VAUARIA incumn ROUTES

GRANT

925

BEHAVIORAL SURVEY ELEMENT

INTRODUCTION

There are many factors contributing to the hurricane-vulnerability of the
coastal areas of East Central Florida. Previous sections of this report
have identified and quantified a number of these variables which may be
used as a basis for measuring the potential evacuation time of the coastal
areas. However, besides defining hurricane hazards, determining their
effects on the region, and identifying potential coastal evacuees, an
essential type of data that must be examined in order to quantify
evacuation time is the human factor of hurricane response. When and if
threatened residents would evacuate, how many vehicles would be needed, the
preplanned destinations of evacuees, and other behavioral tendencies are
added elements in the time required for an evacuation of an area.

One means by which these behavioral characteristics can be determined is
through a survey of the threatened coastal area population. The East
Central Florida Regional Planning Council employed the firm of H. W.
Lochner, Inc., to conduct a statistically significant survey to determine
the responses of the coastal population residents to an approaching
hurricane. From this population, a random sample was drawn and a telephone
survey conducted. The results of the survey were then tabulated and
analyzed, forming the basis for making assumptions of the evacuation
behavior of the entire threatened population. In conjunction with other
background information collected, the survey results provided input to the
process for determining evacuation times.

METHODOLOGY

The behavioral survey for Brevard and Volusia counties focused only on the
population at risk. Since most residents of the study area will not be
threatened and, consequently, not need to evacuate during a hurricane
event, there was no need to determine their behavioral characteristics.
For that reason, the survey was limited to, and a sample was drawn from,
the region's coastal population.

As with almost any survey, there were three major components involved with
undertaking the behavioral survey for the coastal area of East Central
Florida. These consisted of designing the survey questionnaire, drawing
the sample, and administering,the survey. Besides those activities, the
survey process also included tabulating the responses and analyzing the
results. This section of the report discusses the methodology and presents
the behavioral survey results (a copy of the consultant's report providing
more details on the survey is available from the Regional Planning
Council).

The sample, itself, was drawn from city directories of R. L. Polk and
Company and the phone directories in the study area. Starting at a random
point in these records, a skip interval was employed to identify residents
to be surveyed, assuring not only that the sample would be random but also
giving proportional representation in the survey to each of the counties in
the study area. In drawing the sample, 20% more names than were needed
were identified to ensure that the necessary 400 completed surveys would be
obtained despite refusals and other potential problems. Since the survey
was to be conducted by telephone, names and addresses of those persons
chosen through the skip interval method were simultaneously verified in the
phone directory. Only those residents listed in the directories were
included in the sample.

Survey Administration

After the sample had been drawn, notification postcards were sent to all
persons to be surveyed. Arriving one to three days before the scheduled
interview, the postcards were to inform potential respondents of the
survey, generally explain the purpose of the survey, and request their
cooperation. At the same time, news releases explaining the Hurricane
Evacuation Study program, in general, and the behavioral survey, in
particular, were distributed to the media for publication.

Telephone interviews were conducted from April 26, 1982 to May 15, 1982 by
a team of professional interviewers. Calls were made during the day, in
the evening, and on weekends, and up to four callbacks were made before
abandoning a potential respondent. With only a 2.97% refusal rate, the
necessary 400 surveys were completed by the interviewers. To ensure
accurate results, interviewers were monitored during the surveying process,
and completed surveys were examined for quality and consistency.

Compilation

Upon completion of the survey, the results were compiled and tabulated.
Table 12 shows the results. For several of the questions, more
information was obtained than was presented in this summary of the results.
In the evacuation destination question, for example, respondents indicating
that they would go to the home of a friend or relative or to a hotel/motel
were asked to specify the county in which their particular destination was
located, whi-le respondents indicating that they had experienced a hurricane
were asked the date and location of the storm experience. This information
was used for planning purposes and/or refining behavioral assumptions.

Design of Survey Instrument

One of the most important parts of the survey process was design of the
survey questionnaire. As the primary tool for collecting behavioral
information, the questionnaire had to address all the necessary issues,
avoid ambiguity and bias, and be short and simple enough to facilitate

TABLE 12

BEHAVIORAL SURVEY RESULTS

1. Do you Live in a:singZe-fc2niZy home? Single-Family 74.6% t4.1%
multi-fconiZy home? Multi-Family 22.4% t3.9%
mobile home? Mobile Home 1.8% +-1.3%
other?, Other 1.2% tl.O%

2. If you were ordered by a goverment Immediately: 64.7% 4.6%
authority to evacuate, how soon Certain # of Hours: 27.5% 4.3%
could you be ready, and when would Never: 7.8% @.6%
you Zeave?

3. How many vehicles are there in your One Vehicle: 192 Households
household? Two Vehicles: 170 Households
Threa Vehicles: 53 Households
Four Vehicles: Households

a) How many vehicles would you use
during evacuation? Vehicles to be used: 70.0%

b) Would you need transportation,
such as a bus or taxi? Yes: 1.6% +1.5%

4. How many people live in your home,
including you? Average: 2.28 persons per household

5. Is there anybody who could not be +
evacuated without help from outside Yes: 3.7% 1.8%
your home?

6. After leaving, where would you go? To a Red Cross Shelter: 18.3% �3.7%
To a Friend or Relative: 38.1% t4.7%
To a Hotel or Motel: 30.6% �4.5%
Don't Know: 13.0% �3.3%

7. Have you ever experienced a direct
hurricane strike? Yes: 48.7% 4.8%

8. How old are you? Average age of respondents: 55.4 yrs.

9. what is your occupation? White Collar: 58.1% �4.7%
Skilled Tradesman: 17.6% �3.6%
Blue Collar: 24.3% 4.1%

administration by telephone. Only with these characteristics could the
questionnaire produce acceptable results.

The basis of the questionnaire consisted of the major behavioral issues
associated with hurricane evacuation. These included evacuation time,
vehicle use, special transportation needs, special assistance needs,
planned destinations, prior hurricane experience, and perception of threat.
Using other hurricane evacuation surveys as models, a set of questions
incorporating all of these issues was developed. Along with these
substantive issues, a set of questions to identify general socio-economic
and demographic characteristics of the respondents was prepared.

Besides the questionnaire itself, a notification postcard was also
prepared. The purpose of the postcard was to maximize the cooperation by
potential respondents and minimize the refusal rate. Both the survey
instrument and the notification postcard were pretested on a group of 25
households of varying economic and educational backgrounds in different
geographic areas. Based upon the results of the pretest, minor changes
were made to both the questionnaire and the postcard, and a final version
of each was developed.

Drawing the Sample

The primary objective of any survey is to assess the characteristics of the
target population. To ensure that the survey is representative of that
target population, it is necessary to draw a random sample which will
produce results at the desired level of confidence with an acceptable range
of error. This involves identifying the target population, determining
sample size, and developing an-acceptable method for actually drawing the
sample.

For the Hurricane Evacuation Study, the segment of the population whose
behavioral tendencies must be assessed is the,population threatened by
hurricane conditions. According to the hazard analysis, there are almost
217,000 people in the two-county area who would be threatened by, and who
should evacuate prior to the onset of, hurricane conditions. This target
population, therefore, consists of coastal residents in Brevard and Volusia
counties.

After identification of the target population, sample size was determined.
For planning purposes, it was determined that a 95% confidence level with a
margin of error of plus or minus 5% was needed. This would provide results
accurate enough to make assumptions to be used in the planning process.
Based upon the size of the target population and the diversity of that
population which was estimated through researching other similar surveys in
Florida, it was determined that a minimum sample size of 400 was needed to
ensure that the results corresponded to the desired confidence level and
error margin.

As shown in Table 12, the results of each question are given as a
percentage along with the margin of error. The 95% confidence level, which
was used in this survey, signifies that the survey response, plus or minus
the margin of error, produces a range within which responses from the
target population would occur 95% of the time. In Question 2, for example,
64.7% of the respondents, plus or minus 4.6%, said that they would evacuate
immediately. What this means is that if the entire target population (all
coastal residents in the two-county study area) were questioned, it is 95%
certain that between 60.1% and 69.3% of them would indicate that they would
evacuate immediately if ordered to do so.

ANALYSIS

A survey of behavioral tendencies is useful for planning purposes only if
the results can be used to make assumptions about the expected behavior of
the threatened population during hurricane conditions. In order to use the
survey results for this purpose, it was necessary to analyze the results,
assess their validity, determine their significance, and compare them to
similar surveys conducted in Florida. With only nine questions, half of
which were to identify socio-economic or demographic characteristics of the
respondents, the behavioral survey did not require extensive analysis.

Several questions in the behavioral survey were particularly important to
the Hurricane Evacuation Study planning process. These included the
questions involving evacuation time, vehicle use, transportation assistance
needs, evacuation destination, and prior hurricane experience. Based upon
the survey results for these issues, plans were developed for evacuating
and sheltering coastal residents of East Central Florida.

Evacuation Time

Probably the most important issue addressed in the behavioral survey
related to evacuation. The specific aspects of evacuation behavior
considered most important for the study were when and if most of the
threatened population would evacuate. It was particularly important to
determine how long it would take the threatened residents to begin
evacuating if they were ordered to do so by governmental authorities.

Since the coastal areas had recently experienced an evacuation for
Hurricane David in 1979, it was expected that a significant percentage of
the residents would choose not to evacuate. Hurricane David caused only
minor damage to the coast, and it was thought that many residents might be
hesitant to leave during a future hurricane. The results of the behavioral
survey, however, showed this not to be the case. Instead of refusing to
evacuate, the majority indicated that they would evacuate within two and a
half hours of receiving an evacuation order. As shown on Table 12, over
64% of the respondents to the survey indicated in Question 2 that they
would leave immediately if ordered to do so. This figure is less than the
evacuation response time obtained in other hurricane evacuation surveys

conducted in Florida. Several explanations exist for this low response.
It could be that the threatened coastal residents, having recently
experienced evacuation, are aware of the time involved and responded
accordingly. On the other hand, it could be coastal residents are willing
to wait a few hours until they verify the need to evacuate through friends
or neighbors. One other survey questions hurricane experience, which will
be analyzed later in the report and may provide more of an explanation for
these results.

Responses to Question 2 also indicated that 27.5% of the threatened
residents would evacuate within a certain number of hours. The mean
evacuation response time for that group was found to be 2.17 hours. From
the results of this question, then, it was found that almost 92.2% of the
survey population would evacuate within a few hours if ordered to do so.
However, 7.8% of the respondents indicated that they would not evacuate if
ordered. This was higher than any area other than Southeast Florida and
may reflect past evacuation experiences with Hurricane David.

The major implication of the responses to this question related to
transportation. Since the results of Question 2 showed that more than 64%
of the threatened population would evacuate immediately and another 27%
would leave shortly thereafter, the indications were most evacuees would be
on the roads during the first few hours after the evacuation order was
issued. That information--along with an estimate of 7.8% of the population
presumably refusing to evacuate--was used in developing a viable evacuation
plan, establishing a system of evacuation routes, and undertaking other
planning activities.

Hurricane Experience

It would seem that there would be a positive correlation between hurricane
experience and the willingness to evacuate to a place of safety.
Respondents having experienced a direct hurricane strike and understanding
the potential damage posed by such a strike would presumably be more
inclined to evacuate than those with no hurricane experience. When
considering hurricane experience, however, it is necessary to differentiate
between actual hurricane experience and perceived hurricane experience.
While many people feel they have experienced a direct hurricane strike,
oftentimes they have only been exposed to the fringes of the storm.

Since the results of Question 7 indicated that over 48% of the respondents
had experienced a direct hurricane strike, the evacuation response derived
from Question 2 does not follow. When information collected as part of
this question relating to the date and place of the direct hurricanestrike
was compared to actual hurricane information, however, it was found that
only 10% of the respondents had actually experienced a direct hurricane
strike and another 7.1% may have. This indicates that many more people
think they have experienced the worst part of a hurricane when they
actually have not. Hurricane David was not a hurricane over land, although
many of the responses referred to that storm. Once again, those residents

evacuating from Hurricane David (which they perceived as a direct strike)
may account for the low response rate for evacuation in a future storm.
This shows the need for more public information on hurricane hazards.

Transportation

A major part of the entire evacuation issue is transportation. Not only is
it necessary to know when people will respond to an evacuation order, it is
also important to know the means of evacuation, the number of vehicles to
be used, and how many households would need some type of assistance in
evacuating. A series of questions in the survey attempted to address those
issues.

To adequately plan for a hurricane evacuation, it is necessary to know how
many vehicles will be on the road. This could vary considerably, depending
upon whether families would use only one car during an evacuation, whether
they would use more than one car to prevent damage to a vehicle left in a
vulnerable area, or whether they would use some form of transportation
other than their car. Question 3a specifically addressed the issue of
vehicle usage during a hurricane evacuation.

According to the response to Question 3a, 70% of all registered vehicles
owned by coastal residents would be used in an evacuation. This means that
30% of all the vehicles registered to coastal dwellers would be off the
road during an evacuation. This percentage is consistent with vehicle
usage rates obtained from other coastal surveys conducted in Florida.

Besides vehicle usage, other transportation characteristics which are
important to know for evacuation planning include the number of households
which would need bus or taxi type of transportation to evacuate and the
number who could not be evacuated without assistance from outside the
household. These factors have implications for transportation planning in
general and for disaster preparedness operating agencies in particular.
Not only do these figures provide an indication of the number of emergency
vehicles which will have to be used in an evacuation, they also provide an
indication of the personnel who will be needed,

Question 3b related to the need for bus or taxi transportation. According
to the survey results, 1.6% of the respondents woul 'd need such
transportation to evacuate. Because the margin of error for this factor
was plus or minus 1.5%, there is a range of error of plus or minus 94% in
the response. This means that the number of households needing bus or taxi
transportation can be estimated to range from .1% to 3.1% of all households
in the target population. While such a high rate of variation with small
numbers would be unacceptable for detailed transit planning, these figures
provided the general estimate needed for hurricane evacuation purposes.

Like Question 3b, Question 5 addressed only a small part of the entire
population. Responses to Question 5 indicated that 3.7% of the threatened
population would need assistance from outside the household to evacuate.

As with Question 3b, *there is a high margin of error relative to the
percentage answering "yes." At the 95% confidence level, the need for
outside help in evacuating can be estimated to range from 1.9% to 5.5% of
the target population. While that is a substantial variation, it does
provide a general indication of the number of emergency personnel and
vehicles required for evacuation.

The implications of the results derived from this series of questions are
significant. Since vehicle usage rates can be derived from the behavioral
survey, total vehicle usage can be derived by applying these rates to
vehicle registration information. When these estimates are added to
shelter facilities, total demand on the region's transportation system
during an evacuation can be estimated. Based upon these estimates, a
viable inter- and intra-regional transportation plan can be developed.
When transportation assistance needs derived from the behavioral survey
results are incorporated in this process, a comprehensive transportation
plan can be prepared.

Destination

For hurricane evacuation planning--and especially for this Hurricane
Evacuation Study--it is necessary to know the preplanned destinations of
the evacuating population. Question 6 in the behavioral survey addressed
the destination issue. It asked respondents where they would go after
leaving their homes during a hurricane.

The responses to this question varied considerably from responses to a
similar question asked in other hurricane evacuation surveys conducted in
Florida. The primary difference related to the number of responses
indicating a public shelter would be the destination. In the Hurricane
Evacuation Study behavioral survey, 18.3% of the respondents identified a
public shelter as their destination, while the same question included in a
similar survey focusing on the inland area of East Central Florida produced
a shelter usage response almost three times that identified in the coastal
area of the region.

Besides the public shelter response, 13% of the respondents indicated that
they did not know what their destinations would be upon evacuation. This
figure was lower than that derived from the Inland Shelter behavioral
survey and fell between the high and low values for other coastal
behavioral surveys. These results seem to indicate that there is more
awareness of the possibility of a hurricane among coastal residents than
among inland residents and they are more prepared in the event of one
approaching their area. This may also indicate that due to previous
evacuation experience during Hurricane David, individuals are not waiting
to the last minute to decide where they will go in the event of an
evacuation.

Besides the 18.3% of the respondents who identified a public shelter as
their destination after evacuating, and the 13% who indicated that they did

not know where they would go, Question 6 showed that 38.1% of the
respondents would go to the homes of friends or relatives, while the
remaining 30.6% would go to hotels or motels. For that friend/relative and
hotel/motel response, the survey obtained additional information. The
results showed that 67% of Volusia County residents and 53% of Brevard
County residents having homes of friends/relatives or hotels/motels as
destinations would stay in the same county, while the remaining would leave
their respective county. These results have implications for developing an
inter- and intra-regional transportation plan for hurricane evacuation.

COMPARISONS TO OTHER STUDIES

Several other studies have been conducted in Florida to assess the probable
behavioral tendencies of threatened residents during a hurricane event.
Several of these studies were referenced in the previous section for
purposes of comparing the results of questions included in those studies
with similar questions asked in the behavioral survey for the East Central
Florida Inland Shelter Study. This section will examine those surveys in
more detail while identifying some of the main similarities and differences
between the Inland Shelter Study behavioral survey and the other surveys.

The first major behavioral survey conducted as part of the recent hurricane
evacuation planning activities undertaken in Florida was administered in
the southwest Florida area as part of the "Lee County Flood Emergency
Evacuation Plan" (SWFRPC, 1979). That survey was then used as a base for
developing a similar survey for the Tampa Bay region, the "Behavioral
Survey for the Tampa Bay Flood Emergency Evacuation Plan." After that, a
behavioral survey, modeled after the Tampa Bay study, was undertaken in the
Sanibel-Captiva area. Finally, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council undertook a survey in 1981 that was essentially an extension of the
1979 Lee County survey.

Besides the behavioral survey of the coastal area of East Central Florida,
several other surveys were conducted in the same general time frame as part
of other Inland Shelter Study or Hurricane Evacuation Study projects.
These include behavioral surveys for the inland area of East Central
Florida, Southeast Florida coastal area, the Treasure Coast coastal area,
the Central Florida inland area, and both the coastal and inland parts of
the Withlacoochee area. Only the results of the Southeast Florida survey
and the East Central Florida inland survey, however, are presented here.
Table 13 shows the results of the substantive questions for selected
behavioral surveys compared to the East Central Florida coastal area study.
Since all of these surveys were based on the Lee County study, the
similarity in questions facilitated comparisons of the results. The major
differences among the surveys related to survey methodology. Specifically,
the Lee County and Southwest Florida studies were voluntary surveys
published in the newspaper, while the rest were telephone surveys. Because
the Lee County and Southwest Florida studies were not scientific surveys,

TABLE 13
COMPARISON MATRIX OF BEHAVIORAL SURVEYS WITHIN FLORIDA

East Central East central Lee Tampa Sanibel- South- South-
Florida Florida County R.) y Captiva West east
Inland Coastal Florida Florida
EVACUATION RESPONSE
Immediate 80.4% + 4.1% 64.7% + 4.6% N.A. 1 77.1% + 1.8% N.A. 69.2%4 Z + 1.3%
Certain Number of Hours 15.3% + 3.7% 27.5% + 4.3% N.A. 17.2% + 1.7% 95.3% + 2.1% N.A. 4.5% 2 + 0.7%
Never 4.4% + 2.1% 7-8Z + 2.6% N.A. 5.7% + 1.01 2.22 + 1.522 N.A. 26.3% 2 + 1.62
Average of the certain
number of hours 2.05 2.17 N.A. 1.40 3.97 N.A. 2.3%

VEHICULAR USAGE 81.9% 70.0% 81.0% 71.1% 77.3% 74.7% 70.2%
NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION 2;1% + 1.5% 1.6% + 1.5% N.A. 4.0% + 0.6% N.A. N.A. 18.1% 2 + 0.2%
NEED FOR SPECIAL HELP 6.6%+ 2.5% 3.7% + 1.8% N.A. 3.3% + 0.5% N.A. N.A. N.A.
DESTINATION
Shelter 45.6% + 5.1% 18.3% + 3.7% 21.0% 37.9% + 1.4% 8.12 + 2.92 24% 23.1% 2 + 1.52
Friend or Relative 18.2% + 4.0% 38.1% + 4.7% 25.8% + 1.3% 45.4% + 5.31
53.0% 13% 28.02 72+ 1.6%
Hotel or Motel 14.6% + 3.6% 30.6% + 4.5% ig.8% + 1.1% 38.1% + 5-12 4223 10.22 2 + 1.1%
Don't Know 21.6% + 4.2% 13.0% + 3.3% 26.0% 17.4% + 1.1% 8.4% + 2.92 212 11.2% 22+ 1.425

1N.A.: Not Available
2The missing 2.5 percent is included in another question. See survey
31ncludes "Leave the county" (34%). "Stay home" (2%) and "Motel" (4z).
41ncludes 20.6% + 1.5% who would leave before an evacuation order
SNot evacuating: 26.82 + 1.4%

their results could be considered suspect. In addition, the Southeast
Florida study included a number of respondents not residing in vulnerable
areas.

All of the surveys found that more than 90% of residents in vulnerable
areas would evacuate if ordered to do so. There were, however, differences
among the studies as to the number who would leave immediately and those
who would leave within a certain number of hours. For those noting that
their evacuation response time would be a certain number of hours, the
average times ranged from a low of 1.4 hours in the Tampa Bay survey to a
high of 3.97 hours in the Sanibel-Captiva study.

In all seven surveys, vehicle usage ranged from 70-80%. The highest
vehicle usage rate was found in the East Central Florida inland area
survey. Its 82% usage rate can be attributed to the high number of one-
vehicle households in the study area.

The need for public transportation was below 5% in all but Southeast
Florida. In that study, it was found that 18.1% needed transportation.
This high figure results from the fact that 16.1% of the surveyed
households did not own an automobile. The other major transportation
factor--the need for special transportation assistance--was found to be
less than 10% of the threatened population in each study area based on the
behavioral surveys.

Predictably, the demand for shelter was lowest among the more experienced
and relatively wealthy populations on Sanibel and Captiva islands and along
the East Central Florida coast. These populations are experienced in the
sense that the majority are both vulnerable and had either evacuated or
come close to evacuating within the last few years. It appears that many
of these people rethink their evacuation plans annually as hurricanes head
north out of the Caribbean, and they often make preplanned non-shelter
arrangements. This is reflected in the low percentage of respondents in
those surveys identifying public shelters as their destinations as well as
a low number indicating they do not know where they would go.

A questionable aspect of the Sanibel survey is that 38% of the respondents
think that they will find hotel/motel rooms. A follow-up question asking
if the respondents had made prior hurricane contingency reservations at
some mainland hotel or motel showed that virtually nobody had made such
reservations. The implications of that finding are that some potential
evacuees in all threatened areas may have planned destinations which will
not be available at the time of an actual evacuation.

The relationship of the results of the East Central Florida inland area
survey to the observed responses in actual evacuations is extremely
important. Actual evacuation behavior provides one means of assessing the
validity of the survey results. One issue in which such a comparison is
useful is shelter usage. It was found that the highest observed shelter
usage in the United States for a given county population was 36% during

Hurricane Carla. This figure is well above the 18.3% shelter usage rate
found in the East Central Florida coastal area survey and may lend a
certain validity to that figure.

Furthermore, it was found that shelter use increases with the geographic
spread of devastation. The wider the path of destruction, the more an
evacuee's friends and relatives are similarly impacted and, therefore,
cannot be of help.

In contrast to typical hurricanes, geographically compact hurricanes create
almost no demand for shelters. Theoretically, a geographically compact
category 5 hurricane would create less shelter demand than a more
geographically diverse category 4 storm event. In addition, the research
literature has also indicated that the public does not comprehend the fine
distinctions of hurricane advisories, orders and other such terms. People
frequently react to an advisory as if it were an order.

Although there is no specific research on how quickly groups have
responded to evacuation orders, certain delay factors have appeared.
Specifically, residents will take the time after the order to seek
confirmation of the danger through additional sources, including neighbors,
friends and relatives. These delays to the order appear to be neither
extended nor serious.

Finally, for those persons who say they will not evacuate, the only viable
alternative for public officials at this time is to further educate them.
There is no documented case in the country in which such persons have been
forcibly removed from their homes. Political reasons, tradition, the
danger to enforcement officials, and the need for these officials in other
pursuits have precluded such action.

CONCLUSIONS

The behavioral survey for the East Central Florida coastal area addressed a
number of major issues and identified the probable behavioral tendencies of
the threatened population in the study area during a hurricane event.
Although the survey results have been discussed individually, the major
conclusions are summarized below. Together with other research and
background data, these results were used to develop a workable evacuation
plan for the East Central Florida coastal area.

o The vast majority of the households (92.2%) would respond either
imediately or rather promptly.to an evacuation order.

o Of the owned vehicles, 30% would not be used during an evacuation,
thereby helping to reduce the traffic problem.

o While the needs for general (bus or taxi) and specialized
(handicapped) transportation service are a small percentage, these
demands could become a logistical problem involving thousands of
persons within an already strained situation. The general
transportation service problem, however, can be resolved through
increased education, citizen cooperation and advance private
arrangements.

o The indicated shelter space needs exceed 31% of the sample population.
This amount includes those who plan to use public shelters as well as
those not having an evacuation destination, and the figure is most
likely higher than what will be experienced during a hurricane.

o A clear minority of the population has experienced the direct hit of a
major hurricane, and some of the respondents have a misconception that
they were in a major hurricane.

SHELTER ELEMENT

INTRODUCTION

The ability to shelter potential evacuees is a major objective of the
disaster preparedness programs in Volusia and Brevard counties. Ongoing
efforts by the respective Red Cross chapters have resulted in the
designation of a substantial number of public buildings that may be used as
shelters in the event of a hurricane striking the region's coast. This
section will discuss the capability of this existing shelter inventory to
absorb the projected number of evacuees expected to seek public shelter.
Information developed as part of the study's Behavioral Survey has been
used as a basis from which a comparison of shelter demand and shelter
capacity may be made.

The purpose in examining shelter preparedness is twofold. First, the
information provided through the different work tasks will give local
disaster preparedness officials an indication of the adequacy of the
existing shelters to accommodate the predicted level of demand. In
addition, these activities will facilitate the pre-planning required of
officials to ensure that adequate resources are available at the shelters
for the duration of the evacuees' stay. Second, the information generated
has been utilized in the Hurricane Evacuation Study as part of the
Transportation Modeling task to assist in the quantification of evacuation
times. To accurately determine evacuation times, the expected vehicle
volume movement must be accurately simulated in the model. This requires
not only that the destinations of evacuees be known, but that the
destinations be realistic in terms of their ability to accommodate the
prescribed number of evacuees. By evaluating the capacity of the shelter
inventory, shelter assignment and calculation of the time required to
travel from the residents' homes to the shelters could be accurately
determined.

SHELTER INVENTORY

Detailed information on the existing designated shelter structures was
gathered for this study from the local Red Cross chapters and the local
school boards in Volusia and Brevard counties.

Table 14 presents the existing inventory of shelter facilities for each of
the coastal counties in the region. The information provided in this
table fncludesshelter location, type of structure, shelter capacity, and
shelter facilities.

Although the names, addresses, and telephone numbers for the shelter
managers were collected as part of this work effort, they are not included
in the information provided. Primarily, this is because personnel
assignments are subject to frequent change and an out-of-date listing may

TABLE 14

S H E L T E R I.N V E N T 0 R Y
SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER FOOD CAPABILITY VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY ANALYSIS

VOLUSIA COUNTY -- EAST A-

C7
cl
Page I of 6. C.?

1. Burns-Oak Hill Elementary public school 468 x well septic yes 15' 1
I tank
104 Ridge Road
Oak Hill
904/345-3453

2. Campbell Center public school 1997 x xI x x yes 10,
601 So. Keech St. I
Daytona Beach I
904/253-1686

3. Chisholm Center public school 687 x x x x yes 8'
577 Ronnoc Lane Cat.
New Smyrna Beach 3
904/428-2475

4. Daytona Beach Com. College college 2500 X X x yes 15'
500 Welch Blvd.
Daytona Beach f
(bldgs. 14, 16 25)

5. Edgewater Elementary public school 644 x X G x x yes 10,
550 So. Old Count Road Cat.
Edgewater 4

*Althouqh various provisions have been made for providing food services.
in qeneral, food will be brought Into the shelters from outside sources.
C3

NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14 (cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER FOOD CAPABILITY VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY ANALYSIS

VOLUSIA COUNTY -- EAST

Page 2 of 6.
'g,

6. Highlands-Hillcrest Elem. public schools 665 x X x X I Highlands, 1 25'
323 Heineman Street yes.
Daytona Beach Hillcrest,
904/253-1891 no.
Note: Medical Shelter cnly.

7. Holly Hill Elementary public school 839 x X x x yes 15'
1049.Ridgewood Avenue
Holly Hill
904/252-6271
f

x x x septic no
8. Holly Hill Junior High public school 1319 10, 1
1200 Center Street tank
Holly Hill
904/252-0421

9. Hurst Elementary public school 767 x x x septic 10,
1340 Wright Street tank yes
Holly Hill
904/255-3846

meeting hall 100
10. KrAghts of Lulumbus Hall x X I no 10,
509 No. Orange St. Cat.
New Smyrna Beach 4
904/427-4211
vote: Medical Shetter Only.

-Althouqh various provisions have been made for providing food services,
in qeneral. food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
Id,

TABLE 14 (cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y
SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER
STRUCTURE FACILITY FOOD CAPABILITY VULNERABILITY
ANALYSIS

VOLUSIA COUNTY -- EAST
% low
lc@
Page 3 of 6. tv qj
NO

11. Mainland Junior High public school 640 x X x
x yes
215 Third Avenue 25'
Daytona Beach Cat.
904/255-4561 3

12. Mainland Senior High public school 1354 x x x
125 So. Clyde Morris x yes 10,
Daytona Beach
904/252-0401

N)
13. New Smyrna Jr. High public school 881 x x x x yes
100 Live Oak Street 10,
New Smyrna Beach Cat.
904/428-5792 2

14.1 North Ridgewood Elementary public school 271 x x x x yes
365 No. Ridgewood Avenue 56
Daytona Beach Cat.
904/252-7322 2

15. Ormond Beach Elementary public school 373 x x I x x yes
100torbin Avenue 151
Ormond Beach
904/677-3611

'Although various provisions have been made for providing food services.
in qeneral. food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.

TABLE 14 (Cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y
SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER /FOOD CAPABILITY VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE / FACILITY ANALYSIS

VOLUSIA COUNTY -- EAST
W
q-, Ad6
Page 4 of 6.
IP/ (zp 1P

16. Ormond Beach Junior High public school 1413 x x X I x No 10,
151 Domicilio Avenue
Ormond Beach
904/677-7110

17. Ormond Bch. ',f-. Citizens Ctr. meeting hall 150 x x Yes 10,
West Granada Avenue
Ormond Beach
904/677-0311, Ext. 23n
L'ote: Medical Shelter onZ
-4 10,
W Ia. R. Patillo Elementary public school 680 x x x x Yes Cat.
300 6th Street I
New Smyrna Beach 2
904/427-1392 1

x x Yes 101
1 g. Port Orange Elementary public school 331 x x Cat.
402 Ounlawton Avenue -3
Port Orange
904/767-0113

20. South Daytona Elementary public school 870 x x x x I Yes 10,
600 Elizabeth Place
South Daytona
)04/767-0221

'Alth u'h various provisions have been made for providing food services.
in Q:nraj. food will be brought into the Shelters from outside sources.

NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
/411 'A

recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14 (Cont.

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER 14ASTEWATER VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY /FOOD CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
-41b
VOLUSIA COUNTY -- EAST

hp
All
Page 5 of 6.

21. South Ridgewood Elementary public school 214 x x x X Yes 10,
731 S . Ridgewood Avenue Cat.
Daytona Beach
904/252-0592 2

22. Spruce Creek Elementary public school 368 x X x x Yes 25'
642 Taylor Road
Port Orange
904/788-1341

23. Spruce Creek Senior High public school 2828 x x x X No 25,
1484 Taylor Road
Port Orange
904/761-0220

24. Tomoka Elementary public school 1133 X x Yes 251
R.F.D. I Old Tomoka Road
Ormond Beach
904/677-3822

25. Turie T. Small Elementary public school, 887 X X x x No 10,
300 South Street
Daytona Beach
904 /252-4738

A
/J"

.@jthouqh various provisions have been made for providing food services.
n qenera). food will be brought into the shelter% from outside sources.

TABLE 14 (cont.

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

WASTEWATER VULNERABILITY
SHELTM(Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER FOOD CAPABILITY
STRUCTURE / FACILITY ANALYSIS

4,
Q1'
VOLUSIA COUNTY -- EAST

,Zq 4,
. /'g
Page 6 of 6.

26. West Sid .e Elementary public school 1361 x x x X Yes 28'
1210 Jimmy Ann Drive
Daytona Beach
904/253-1671

provisions have been made for tproviding food services.

hel ter
;n gener 1. food Wi I I be brought Into the shel ers from outside sources. NOTE: S capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
4:@

recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y
SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER FOOD CAPABILITY VULNER@BILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY ANALYSIS

A,
VOLUSIA COUNTY WEST

Q Aq,
Page.1 of 3. -b
10

1. Boston Avenue public school 516 x X x x Yes 1 85'
340 No. Boston Avenue
DeLand
904/734-2060

2. DeLand Senior High public school 1387 x x x x Yes 80-
800 No. Hill Avenue
DeLand
904/734-1100

--j X x 850
3. Deltona Jr. High public school 1500 x x Yes
250 Enterprise Road
Deltona
904/574-6626

4. Enterprise Elementary public school 1090 X X x x Yes 25'
211 Main Street
Enterprise
904/668-8641

5. Fla. Lutheran Retirement Ctr. meeting hall 200 x x x X Yes 80,
431 No. Kansas Avenue
DeLand
904/734-0603
;ote: Medical Shelter only.

@7
I thau gh various provisions have oeen nade for providing food services.
n general. food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
WATER

TABLE 14 (Cont.

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

WASTEWATER VULNERABILITY
SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER FACILITY FOOD CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
STRUCTURE

'A@
VOLUSIA COUNTY -- WEST

Q
Page 2 of 3. C7

6. Long Lake Helen Elementary public school 187 x X x septic (satellite feeding) 65' - - -
tank
307 South Lakeview Drive
Lake Helen
904/228-2208

65'
7. Louise S. McInnis public school 544 x x well packagE yes
Highway 17 plant
DeLeon Springs
904/985-4812

j 8. George Marks Elementary public school 587 x x x septic yes 75'
1000 No. Garfield Avenue tank
DeLand
904/734-0401 f

9. orange City Elementary public school 451 x x x septic yes 65' - - -
555 East University Avenue tank
Orange City
904/775-3090

well septic yes 55'
10. Seville Elementary public school 375 x x
tank
Highway 17
Seville
904/749-2292

-Although various provisions have been made for providing food services.
in general, food will be brought into the Shelters from outside sources.
NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14 (Cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y
SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER FOOD CAPABI VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY LITY
ANALYSIS

VOLUSIA COUNTY -- WEST cl -k
0

Page 3 of 3.
C7
c;' NIZ, .0 N
0 NO
x ;septic yes
I]. Southwestern Center public school 933 x x 651
605 W. New Hampshire tank
DeLand
904/734-7700

12. Starke Elementary public school 425 x X x x yes 351
730 So. Parson Street
DeLand
904/734-6700
00 13. T. DeWitt Taylor High public school 300 x x well package yes 651
100 E. Washington Avenue plant
Pierson
904/749-2223

14. Woodward Avenue public school 1120 x x x 'Package yes 651
1201 So. Woodward Ave. plant,
DeLand
904/734-6176
4
1-- %j
@1
C

*Although various provisions have been made for providing food services,
in general, food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources
NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14 (Cont.

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y
SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER /FOOD CAPABILITY VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTY--North (0 A.

A
Page I of 3. It>
If ae
r?

1. Apollo Elementary public school 350 X X I X Yes 25' 1
3300 Knox McRae Drive
Titusville
305/267-7890

2. Astronaut High public school 1000 X I X X Yes 20'
SOO War Eagle Blvd.
Titusville
305/267-5500

3. Coquina Elementary public school 400 X X X Yes 20'
850 Knox McRae Drive
Titusville f
305/267-7014

4. Imperial Estates Elementary public school 300 X X X No 25'
5525 Kathy Drive
Titusville
305/267-1773

5. Jackson Middle public school 450 X X X Yes 25'
1515 Knox McRae Drive
itusville
,05/269-1812
=A

-Although various provisions have been made for providing food services,
in general, food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14 (Cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY /FOOD CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
/I_N / .4 /f / / b
BREVARD COUNTY--North
IZ,
Page 2 of 3. _4@1 4A
C1

6. Madison Middle public school 416 X x X No 30'
3375 Dairy Road
Titusville
305/267-4077

X 20'
7. Mims Elementary public school 300 well pckage Yes
2582 U.S. Highway I plant
Mims
00 305/267-3344
CD 8. Oak Park Elementary public school 350 x x x Yes 201
3395 Dairy Road
Titusville
305/269-3252

9. Pinewood Elementary public school 300 x well lpckage. No 201
3654 Lionel Road plant
Mims
305/269-4530

10. Riverview Elementary public school 400 X x x No 251
3000 Jolly St.
Titusville
305/269-2325

*Al though various provisim have been made for providing food services,
41 n S
;7--

in gener 1. food will be brought I to the heiters from outside sources.
NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14 (Cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

WASTEWATER VULNERABILITY
SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER ODD CAPABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY /F ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTY--North

Page 3 of 3.

T
11. South Lake Elementary public school 375 X x X I Yes 30' - - -
3755 Garden St.
Titusville
305/269-1022

12. Titusville High public school 900 X x x Yes 301 Cat.
1850 So. Washington Ave. 3
Titusville
305/269-3561
00

13. Brevard Community College college 270 x E & Yes 251
North Campus igen-
1111 No. Washington Ave. era-
tor.
Titusville
305/269-5664

14. First Presbyterian Church church 186 x x x Yes 351
of Titusville
1300 Golfview Drive
Titusville
305/267-2745

*Although various provisions have been nmde for providing food services.
'n general. food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.

TABLE 14 (cont.

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER FOOD CAPABILITY VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY
ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTY--Central 4@ 'd 4ti
Q111
4 Cl
(b
Page 1 of 4.

1. Hans Christian Andersen Elem. public school 350 X x x No 25'
3011 South Fiske Blvd.
Rockledge'
305/636-5610 1

2. Cambridge Elementary public school 350 x x x Yes 251
2000 Cambridge Drive
Cocoa
305/636-3443

X
3. Clearlake Middle public school 350 x x No 201
1225 Clearlake Rd.
Cocoa
305/636-4021

4. Cocoa High p9blic school 900 x x x Yes 201
2000 Tiger Trail
Cocoa
305/632-5300

j
5. Fairglen Elementary public school 350 x x jpkage. Yes 251
plant
'01 Indian Trail
Cocoa
205/631-1993

"Altho h various provisions have been made for providing food services.
U:ra food will be brought into the shelters from Outside sources.
in ge.
NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
AST'WATE1 VU1
ACI T,
TY ZL
74@

recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE -14 (Cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER FOOD CAPABILITY VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTY--Central

A
Page 2 of 4.

6. Golfview Elementary public school 350 X x X No 25'
1530 So. Fiske Blvd.
Rockledge
305/632-3880

public school 500 xI x Yes 25'
7. Kennedy Middle
2100 So. Fiske Blvd.
Rockledoe
305/632-9500 1
00

public school 550 x 20'
8. Poinsett Middle
501 Poinsett Drive
Cocoa
305/6 36-4982

x x x Yes 25'
9. Pineda Elementary public school 500 1
905 Pineda St.
Cocoa
305/636-3545

Yes 25'
10. Rockledqe High public school 900 x x x
220 Rockledge Ave.
Rockledge
305/636-3711

-Althouqh various Provisions have been made for providing food services.
:n genera 1, food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
lip

TABLE 14 (Cont,)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y
TYPE OF WASTEWATER VULNERABILITY
SHELTER (Address/Phone) CAPACITY POWER WATER FOOD CAPABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY ANAL SIS
/I:@ / / / A@ / *1 b
Aj
BREVARD COUNTY--Central

Page 3 of 4.
IR",
11. Saturn Elementary public school 400 X X X Yes 1 15' 1
890 Range Road
Cocoa
305/632-6161

12. Brevard Community College-- college 1070 X I E X No 121
Central Campus (lift
1519 Clearlake Road station
Cocoa required)
305/632-1111, ext. 304/305
00
4@1- 13. Cocoa Presbyterian Church church 355 X X Yes 201
1404 Dixon Blvd. I
Cocoa
305/636-9602

14. First Baptist Church of church 350 X X Yes 251 - - -
Rockledge
1810 Cedar Street
Rockledge
305/636-1493

15. First United Methodist Church church 166 X ISeptic Yes 151 Cat.
of Cocoa tanks
825 Forrest Avenue (3) 1 3
Cocoa
305/636-14811

Z7@
-Although various Provisions have been iude for providing food services.
in general. food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14 (Cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

TYPE OF PO',..'ER WATER WASTEWATER FOOD CAPABILITY VULNERABILITY
SHELTER (Address/Phone) STRUCTURE CAPACITY FACILITY ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTY--Central R,

Page 4 of 4. c, q,-

T
16. Hope United Church of Christ church 133 X X I Yes 1 15'
2555 So. Fiske Blvd.
Rockledge
305/636-0250

17. Mt. Moriah AME Church--Cocoa church 300 X I E x Yes 20'
305 Magnolia
Cocoa
305/636-0025
00

20'
18. St. Mary's Church church 100 x X I Yes
1132 So. Seminole Drive
Rockledge
305/636-6834

'Although various provisions have been rude for providing food services.
in general, food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
c

recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14 (Cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY FOOD CAPABILITY ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTY--South
C,
Page I of 7.
A.
Koo a, Al

1. Central Jr. High pyblic school 575 X x x I Yes
250 West Brevard Drive
Melbourne 20' - - -
305/254-4875

2. Creel Elementary public school 400 gen- Yes
1566 Palmwood Drive era-
Melbourne Itor. 201
305/259-3233
00
cn

3. Croton Elementary public school 350 nen x X Yes 201
144� Croton Road era-
Melbourne tor.
305/259-3818

4. Eau Gallie High public school 900 gen- x X Yes 25,
1400 Comodore Blvd. lera-
Melbourne tor.
305/254-8421

5. Harbor City Elementary public school 350 (gen- x x Yes
1377 Sarno Road era- 20'
Melbourne Itor.
,305/254-5534

Wthough various provisions have been made for providing food services.
'n general. food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
WAS TEWAT/ER
FACILITY

AQ,

TABLE 14 (Cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF
CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE /FOOD CAPABILITY
FACILITY
ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTY--South
Page 2 of 7. A
4@ q,
11P/ 'zi" '/4"

6. Johnson Jr. High public school 550 Igen- x X Yes 15,
2155 Croton Road era- I
Melbourne itor.
305/259-3338

7. Meadowlane Elementary public school 300 f x x x No 20'
Minton Road
West Melbourne
(305/723-6354
00

8. Melbourne High public school 1000 x x x I Yes
74 Bulldog Blvd. 25'
Melbourne
305/723-4151

9. Palm Bay Elementary public school 350 x x X I Yes
515 Allamanda Rd. S.E. 1 251 - - -
Palm Bay
305/723-1055

10. Palm Bay High public school 925
I Pirate Lane x x x Yes 251
f
'Ielbourne I
705/723-3031

-@Ithotjqh Ydrious provisions have been made for providing food services.
inqenerdl, food will be brought Into the shelters from outside sources.

NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions-
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14 (Cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

TYPE OF WASTEWATER
SHELTER (Address/Phone) STRUCTURE CAPACITY POWER WATER FACILITY FOOD CAPABILITY VULNERABILITY
ANALYSIS

'k, A@'
BREVARD COUNTY--South ell
Page 3 of 7. b

11. Roy Allen Elementary public school 300 gen- X x No 25'
2601 Fountainhead Blvd. jera-
Melbourne tor.
305/254-4496 1

12. Saba] Elementary public school 325 Igen- x x Yes 251
1400 Wickham Road era-
Melbourne ltor.
305/254-7261
03 1
00

13. Sherwood Elementary public school ' 325 gen- x x Yes 201
900 Post Road era-
Melbourne tor.
305/254-6424 1

14-. Stone Middle public school 650 x x x Yes 251 - - -
1101 East University Blvd.
Melbourne
305/723-0741

15. Uni.versity Park Elementary public school 300 X x X I Yes 151
500 W. University Blvd.
11elbourne
305/723-2566

'AlthOUqh Various provisions have been made for providing food services.
a
;n gen ral, food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
/7_k_A@b

NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
recommended by the American Red cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14. (Cont.

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y

SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER 00 CAPABILITY VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY /FO A
NALYSIS
If If If
BREVARD COUNTY--South " / NA
If If If
If
"Z@ If Qf
Page 4 of 7. 4.1-15, If If

16. Brevard Community College college 2000 XIgen- Yes 1 20'
South Campus era-
3865 N. Wickham Road tor.
Melbourne
305/254-0305, ext. 203

17. Florida Institute of college 250 XIE No 15'
Technology
Country Club & University
Park Blvd.
00 Melbourne
305/723-3701
18. Bethel Assembly of Good church 125 X septic Yes 25'
26 West Fee Avenue tank
Melbourne
305/727-2606

19. Bowe Gardens Baptist church 166 Xgen- x Yes
iera- 20'
2700 Sarno Road
Melbourne tor.
305/254-5622

20. First Church of the Nazarene church 110 x x I septic Yes 20'
tank
L-745 So. Babcock St.
Melbourne

0
in ge ral. food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
*Alth 01h various provisions have been made for providing food services,

NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
"'e

recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE 14 (Cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y
SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER FOOD CAPABILITY VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY ANALYSIS
/ / /
'k, Q_1
BREVARD COUNTY--South

Page 5 of 7. Q Q-1

church 575 x Yes 1 201
21. First United Methodist of
Melbourne
110 E. New Haven Avenue
Melbourne
305/723-6761

church ]Do X I well septic No 251
22. Free Will Baptist tanks
938 Lytton Road (2)
Melbourne
305/254-7282

23. Harbor City Baptist church 287 x gen- x x Yes 25' Cat.
2740 No. Pineapple lera- 2
Melbourne tor.
305/494-4774 1

24. Palm Bay United Methodist church 133 X E x x Yes 251
702 S.E. Point Malabar Blvd.
Palm Bay
305/727-8651

ugh various provisions have been made for providing food services.
in :neral. food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a.standard
recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE.14 (Cont.)

S H E L T E R I N V E N T 0 R Y
WASTEWATER /FOOD CAP VULNERABILITY
SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER FACILITY ABILITY ANALYSIS
STRUCTURE I
/

BREVARD COUNTY--South
cti
Page 6 of 7.

25. St. Paul's United Methodist church 166 x I E I x X I Yes 1 20' 1 Cat.
gen- 3
1591 Highland Avenue
Melbourne era-
305/254-6363 Itor.
-L I
26. United Church of Christ church 100 X I x I x Yes 25' Cat.
U.S. 1 & Strawbridge Ave. I 1 3
Melbourne I
305/723-3575 1

27. Wesley United Methodist church 125 x I X septic Yes 20'
50 Minton Road tank
West Melbourne
305/727-7585

28. Our Lady of Lourdes church/ 150 x x 25'
1710 So. Hickory Street hospital
Melbourne
305/723-3636
,Vo t e :for dialysis (kidney
,nachine)patients only. 827 1 x x x Yes 20'
29. Palm Bay Recreation Center recreation
Port Malabar Blvd. center
Palm Bay
305/727-7100

-Although various provisions have been made for providing food services.
m general. food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
NOTE: Shelter capacity was based oil 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
b

recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

TABLE -14 (Co6t.)

S H E L T E R N V E N T 0 R Y

SHELTER (Address/Phone) TYPE OF CAPACITY POWER WATER WASTEWATER VULNERABILITY
STRUCTURE FACILITY / FOOD CAPABILITY ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTY--South

Page 7 of 7.
C_j Cj

30. Trinity Towers senior 170 x x x Yes 15'
650 E. Strawbridge Ave. citizens
Melbourne center
305/723-7512'
Note: For handicapped only.

20.
31. Veterans of Foreign Wars veterans III x x I x septic
Post #4206 organization tank
3201 So. Dairy Road
Melbourne
305/724-4121
9"
'b'
4;

.@'Althouqh various provisions have been made for providing food services,
in general, food will be brought into the shelters from outside sources.
NOTE: Shelter capacity was based on 40 sq. ft./person, a standard
recommended by the American Red Cross and utilized by the
local Red Cross chapters within the Study Area. Discussions
regarding the availability of capacity reflect this standard.

be confusing in a future emergency. Secondly, as the purpose of this study
was to provide an overall framework for plan development, the designation
of specific operational manpower was beyond the scope of this work effort.

SHELTER/MEDICAL FACILITY SURGE ANALYSIS

To determine the availability of shelter/medical facilities for use during
a hurricane, a surge analysis was completed. Specifically, the intent of
the analysis was to determine under what circumstances which facilities are
subject to hurricane-induced storm surge and should not be used. In
addition, medical and group homes subject to flooding were identified.
Since residents of medical facilities and group homes suffer from a lack of
mobility and may need continuous medical attention, their potential for
special needs during an evacuation must be identified.

The methodology used in determining the flooding potential of public
shelters within the study area consisted of comparing the geographic
location of a particular structure to the predicted level of storm surge
inundation as identified in the Vulnerability Analysis. First, each
structure was pinpointed on a set of vulnerability area maps, which have
been included in the appendices. These maps identify each of the 63
shelters in Brevard County and 26 coastal shelters in Volusia County. The
site location numbers found on the vulnerability area maps correspond to
the public shelter number in Table .15. Fourteen additional Volusia County
shelters are located considerably inland and, consequently, were not
considered in the surge vulnerability analysis. Each of the 89 shelters
was then identified in regard to its potential for flooding from various
categories of storms.

The surge vulnerability analysis of public shelters within the two-county
study area identified five facilities vulnerable to a category 1-2 storm
and 9 facilities vulnerable in a category 3-5 storm. Based on these
determinations, recommendations to existing sheltering plans were forwarded
to local disaster preparedness officials.

The methodology used in determining the feasibility of public shelters was
also used in analyzing group homes, hospitals and nursing homes. The surge
vulnerability analysis on health care facilities, however, was conducted in
regard to the special evacuation needs of the elderly/disabled; namely,
transportation logistics and medical supervision. Facilities determined to
be susceptible to hurrica 'ne-generated storm surge must develop operational
plans for evacuating their patients/residents. Since there will be related
demands for trained personnel and proper medical equipment, it is suggested
that vulnerable health care facilities (risk facilities) evacuate to
similar facilities which are not prone to storm surge inundation (host
facilities). Thus, those health care facilities determined not to be
located in vulnerable areas must also develop disaster preparedness plans,
since they will be called on to accommodate displaced elderly and disabled
evacuees.

TABLE 15

SURGE VULNERABILITY ANA?.YSIS pige 1. of 1. 5-

INSTITUTION (address/phone) @LOOU HAZARD ANALNSIS

BREVARD COUNTV Cate- Cate- Cate- Cat - Cite- Not vulnerable
gory I gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge

(G,Eoup Homez)

1. Asbury Arms Apartments YX
1430 Dixon Blvd.
Cocoa
(305) 632-4943

2. Bethesda Baptist Retirement Home XX
748 Fordham Road
Palm Bay
(305) 723-3288

3. Brevard Hotel XX
112 Indian River Drive
Cocoa
(305) 636-1411

4. Titusville Tower XX
1405 Indian River Avenue
Titusville
(305) 269-2810

5. Tompkins Adult Congregate Home
100 Lee Road
West Melbourne
(305) 724-4950

6. Trinity Towers East
700 East Strawbridge Avenue
Melbourne
(305) 723-7511

7. Trinity Towers South XX
New Haven Drive
Mel bourne
(305) 723-8620

8. Trinity Towers West XX
650 East Strawbridge Avenue
Melbourne
(305) 723-7512

9. Vereene's Love & Care Home XX
1304 East Gibbs Street
Melbourne
(305) 727-0708

(Ho6pi.taes)

10. Cape Canaveral Hospital XX
701 West Cocoa Beach Causeway
Cocoa Beach
(305) 783-7721

TABLE 15 (Cont.)
SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page _2 or 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTV (continued) Cate- Cat e- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulnerable
gory I gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge

(Hoapi"--continued)
11. James H. Holmes Regional Med. Ctr. xx
1350 So. Hickory Street
Melbourne
(305) 727-7000

12. Jess Parish Memorial Hospital xx
751 No. Washington Avenue
Titusville
(305) 268-6111

13. Wuestoff Memorial Hospital xx
110 Longwood Avenue
Rockledge
(305) 636-2211

(Nuising Hoinez)

14. Adare Medical Center xx
1775 Huntington Lane
Rockledge
(305) 632-7341

15. Carnegie Gardens Nursing Home xx
1415 So. Hickory Street
Melbourne
(305) 723-1321

16. Florida Convalescent Home, Inc.
516 East Sheridan Road
Melbourne
(305) 727-0984

17. Medic-Home Health Ctr. of Melbourn xx
1420 So. Oak Street
Melbourne
(305) 723-3215

18. Merritt Manor Nursing Home xx
125 Alma Boulevard
Merritt Island
(305) 453-0202

19. Sunny Pines Convalescent Ctr.,Inc. xx
587 Barton Boulevard
Rockledge
(305) 632-6300

20. Titusville Nursing & Convalesc.Ctr. xx
1705 Jess Parish Court
Titusville
(305) 269-5720

TABLE 15 Con t.)
SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page 1--.of 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulnerable
BREVARD COUNTV (continued), gory I gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge

(Nu.uing Home.6- -continued)

21. West Melbourne Health Care Center XX
125 Alma Boulevard
Merritt Island
(305) 453-0202

(Pubtic Shettvus) - NORTH

22. Apollo Elementary XX
3300 Knox McRae Drive
Titusville
(305) 267-7890

23. Astronaut High XX
800 War Eagle Boulevard
Titusville
(305) 267-5500

24. Coquina Elementary XX
850 Knox McRae Drive
Titusville
(305) 267-7014

25. Imperial Estates Elementary XX
5525 Kathy Drive
Titusville
(305) 267-1773

26. Jackson Middle XX
1515 Knox McRae Drive
Titusville
(305) 269-1812

27. Madison Middle XX
3375 Dairy Road
Titusville
(305) 267-4077

28. Mims Elementary XX
2582 US Highway 1
Mims
(305) 267-3344

29. Oak Park Elementary XX
3395 Dairy Road
Titusville
(305) 269-3252

30. Pinewood Elementary XX
3654 Lionel Road
Mims
(305) 269-4530

TABLE 15 (Cont.)
SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page -4 of 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTV (continued) Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulnerable
gory I gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge

(Pubtic ShetteAz - NORTH -- continued)

31. Riverview Elementary xx
3000 Jolly Street
Titusville
(305) 269-2325

32. South Lake Elementary xx
3755 Garden Street
Titusville
(305) 269-1022

33. Titusville High xx
1850 So. Washington Ave.
Titusville
(30S) 269-3561

34. Brevard Comm. College-North Campus xx
1111 No. Washington Avenue
Titusville
(305) 269-5664

35. First Presbyterian Church of
Titusville xx
1300 Golfview Drive
Titusville
(305) 267-2745

(Pubtic Shettv,%s) - CENTRA

36. Hans Christian Andersen Elementary xx
3011 So. Fiske Boulevard
Rockledge
636-5610

37. Cambridge Elementary xx
2000 Cambridge Drive
Cocoa
(305) 636-3443

38. Clearlake Middle xx
1225 Clearlake Road
Cocoa
(305) 636-4021

39. Cocoa High xx
2000 Tiger Trail
Cocoa
(305) 632-5300

40. Fairglen Elementary xx
201 Indian Trail
Cocoa
(305) 631-1993

TABLE 15 (Cont.)
SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page 5 of 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTY (continued) Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Cat - Not Vulnerable
gory 1 gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge

(Pubtic Shettm - CENML - continuedl
41. Golfview Elementary XX
1530 So. Fiske Boulevard
Rockledge
(305) 632-3880

42. Kennedy Middle XX
2100 So. Fiske Boulevard
Rockledge
(305) 632-9500

43. Poinsett Middle XX
501 Poinsett Drive
Cocoa
(305) 636-4982

44. Pineda Elementary XX
905 Pineda Street
Cocoa
(305) 636-3545

45. Rockledge High XX
220 Rockledge Avenue
Rockledge
(305) 636-3711

46. Saturn Elementary XX
880-Range Road
Cocoa
(305) 632-6161

47. Brevard Comm. College Central
Campus XX
1519 Clearlake Road
Cocoa
(305) 632-1111, Ext. 304/305

48. Cocoa Presbyterian Church XX
1404 Dixon Boulevard
Cocoa
(305) 636-9602

49. Ist Baptist Church of Rockledge XX
1810 Cedar Street
Rockledge
(305) 636-1493

50. lst United Meth. Church of Cocoa XX
825 Forrest Avenue
Cocoa
(305) 636-4811

TABLE 15 (Cont.)

SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page 6 of 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulnerable
BREVARD COUMTY (continued) gory I gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge

(Pub,tic ShettvLA - fft4TRAL - continued)

51. Hope United Church of Christ xx
2555 So. Fiske Boulevard
Rockledge
(305) 636-0250

52. Mt. Moriah AME Church - Cocoa xx
305 Magnolia
Cocoa
(305) 636-0025

53. St. Mary's Church xx
1132 So. Seminole Drive
Rockledge
(305) 636-6834

(Pubtic Shetteu SOUTH

54. Central Jr. High xx
250 West Brevard Drive
Melbourne
(305) 254-4875

55. Creel Elementary xx
1566 Palmwood Drive
Melbourne
(305) 259-3233

56. Croton Elementary xx
1449 Croton Road
Melbourne
(305) 259-3818

57. Eau Gallie High xx
1400 Commodore Boulevard
Melbourne
(305) 254-8421

58. Harbor City Elementary xx
1377 Sarno Road
Melbourne
(305) 254-5534

59. Johnson Jr. High xx
2155 Croton Road
Melbourne
(305) 259-3338

60. Meadowlane Elementary xx
Minton Road
West Melbourne
(305) 723-6354

TABLE 15 (Cont.)

SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page 7 of 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUNTV (continued) Cate Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate Not Vulnerable
gory 1 gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge

(Pubtic ShetteAA - SOUTH - continued)

61. Melbourne High xx
74 Bulldog Boulevard
Melbourne
(305) 723-4151

62. Palm Bay Elementary xx
515'Allamanda Road, SE
Palm Bay
(305) 723-1055

63. Palm Bay High xx
1 Pirate Lane
Melbourne
(305) 723-3031

64. Roy Allen Elementary xx
2601 Fountainhead Boulevard
Melbourne
(305) 254-4496

65. Sabal Elementary xx
1400 Wickham Road
Melbourne
(305) 254-7261

66. Sherwood Elementary xx
900 Post Road
Melbourne
(305) 254-6424

67. Stone Middle xx
1101 East University Boulevard
Melbourne
(305) 723-0741

68. University Park Elementary XX4
600 W. University Boulevard
Melbourne
(305) 723-2566

69. Brevard Comm. College-So.Campus xx
3865 No. Wickham Road
Melbourne
(305) 254-0305, Ext. 203

70. FL Institute of Technology xx
Country Club & University Park Blvd.
Melbourne
(305) 723-3701

100

TABLE 15 (Cont.)
SURGE VULNLRABILITY ANALYSIS page 8 of 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulnerable
BREVARD COUNTY (continuedl gory 1 gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge

(Pubtic She"eA,6 - SOUTH - continued)

71. Bethel Assembly of God xx
26 West Fee Avenue
Melbourne
-(305) 727-2606

72. Bowe Gardens Baptist xx
2700 Sarno Road
Melbourne
(305) 254-5622

73. lst Church of the Nazarene xx
2745 So. Babcock Street
Melbourne
(305) 723-3745

74. Ist United Methodist of Melbourne xx
110 E. New Haven Avenue
Melbourne
(305) 723-6761

75. Free Will Baptist xx
938 Lytton Road
Melbourne
(305) 254-7282

76. Harbor City Baptist xx
2740 No. Pineapple
Melbourne
(305) 494-4774

77. Palm Bay United Methodist xx
702 SE Point Malabar Boulevard
Palm Bay
(305) 727-8651

78. St. Paul's United Methodist xx
1591 Highland Avenue
Melbourne
(305) 254-6363

79. United Church of Christ xx
US I & Strawbridge Ave.
Melbourne
(305) 723-3575

80. Wesley United Methodist xx
50 Minton Road
West Melbourne
(305) 727-7585

101

TABLE 15_"__('C0'nt.)
SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page 9 of 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

BREVARD COUAITY leontZnued) Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulnerable
gory I gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge

(Pubtic ShetteAa - SOUTH - continued)

81. Our Lady of Lourdes xx
1710 So. Hickory Street
Melbourne
(305) 723-3636(Note: For dialysis
(kidney machine) patients only)

82. Palm Bay Recreation Center xx
Port Malabar Boulevard
Palm Bay
(305) 727-7100

83. Veterans of Foreign Wars xx
Post #4206
3201 So. Dairy Road
Melbourne
(305) 724-4121
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
F-8-1 Trinity Towers West xx
650 E. Strawbridge Ave.
Melbourne
(305) 723-7512
(Note: For handicapped only)

102

TABLE 15 (Cont.)
SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page 10 of 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulne able
VOLUSIA COUNTV gory I gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge

(Ckoup HomW
1. Beach Manor, Inc. XX
331 So. Ridgewood Avenue
Daytona Beach
(904) 255-2389

2. Big Tree Manor XX
1000 Big Tree Road
Daytona Beach
(904) 761-0690

3. Clark's Rooming House XX
545 magnolia Avenue
Daytona Beach
(904) 253-2139

4. Country Manor XX
1127 West Herbert Street
Port Orange
(904) 761-7678

5. Golden Days Rest Home XX
834 No. Halifax
Daytona Beach
(904) 253-6364

6. Lynn's Care Center, Inc. XX
1562 Garden Avenue
Holl Hill
(904@ 672-3135

7. Lynn's Care Center, Inc., Phase 11 XX
1529 Ridge Avenue
Holl Hill
(904@ 672-3966

8. Mae Walls Care XX
1218 Old Kings Road
Holl Hill
(904@ 255-9225

9. Martin Rest Home XX
1301 Pine Ridge Drive
Holly Hill
(904) 255-2455

10. Ocean View Manor XX
624 So. Atlantic
Daytona Beach
(904) 258-5116

103

TABLE 15 (Cont.)
SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page 11 of' 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

-VOLUSIA COUNTV (continued) Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulnerable
gory I gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge
(G4oup Home-6 - continued)

11. Port Orange Elderly Guest Home, Inc. xx
414 Orange Avenue
Port Orange
(904) 767-5604

12. Rastelle Manor xx
934 So. Ridgewood Avenue
Daytona Beach
(904) 252-2627

13. Shady Oaks Rest Home xx
1208 Kennedy Avenue
Daytona Beach
(904) 672-9895

14. Signorelli's Elderly Care Home xx
158 Farmbrook Road
Harbor Oaks
(904) 767-1613

15. Sugar Lake Retirement Home xx
224 Mission Drive
New Smyrna Beach
(904) 427-2492

16. The Fair Haven xx
86 So. Ridgewood
Ormond Beach
(904) 677-1022

17. The Greater Love Retirement Center xx
1645 Center Street
Holl Hill
.(904@ 673-0957

18. Todd Boarding Home xx
522 Walker Street
Daytona Beach
(904) 252-5426

(Ho6pitafs)

19. Daytona Beach General Hospital xx
1340 Ridgewood Avenue
Holly Hill
(904) 677-5100

20. Daytona Coiimunity Hospital xx
400 No. Clyde Morris Boulevard
Daytona Beach
(904) 255-8192

104

TABLE 15 (Cont.

SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page 12 of 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

VOLUSIA COUNTV (continued) Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulnerable
gory I gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge
WoApitat-6 - continued)

21. Fish Memorial Hospital XX
300 Lytle Avenue
New Smyrna Beach
(904) 255-8981

22. Halifax Hospital Medical Center XX
Clyde Morris Boulevard
Daytona Beach
(904) 255-0161

23. Ormond Beach Hospital XX
264 So. Atlantic Avenue
Ormond Beach
(904) 672-4161

24. Ormond Memorial Hospital XX
875 Sterthaus Avenue
Ormond Beach
NN) F311-1700

25. Bowmdri's Nursing Center XX
350 So. Ridgewood Avenue
Ormond Beach
(904) 677-4545

26. Clyatt Memorial Geriatric Center XX
1001 So. Beach
Daytona Beach
(904) 255-3653

27. Daytona Beach Geriatric Center XX
1055 Third Street
Daytona Beach
(904) 252-3686

28. Daytona Manor Nursing Home XX
650 Reed Canal Road
South Daytona Beach
(904) 767-4831

29. Golden Age Nursing Home, Inc. XX
324 Wilder Boulevard
Daytona Beach
(904) 252-2600

30. Good Samaritan Nursing Center XX
325 So. Segrave Court'
Daytona Beach
(904) 253-6791

105

TABLE 15 (Cont.)
SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page 13 of 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

VOLUSIA COUNTV (continued) Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulnerable
gor@ gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge
(NwtA@ng Home,6 - continued)

31. Holiday Care Center xx
1031 So. Beach
Daytona Beach
(904) 255-2453

32. Huntington Square Convalarium xx
100 Broadway
Daytona Beach
(904) 255-6571

33. Medic Home Health Ctr. of Ormond Bc xx
170 No. Kings Road
Ormond Beach
(904) 677-7955

34. Ocean View Nursing Home xx
2810 So. Atlantic Avenue
New Smyrna Beach
(904) 428-6424

35. Ormond Lutheran Manor xx
P.O. Drawer 397
Ormond Beach
(904) 677-9121

(Pubtic Sheeteu) - EAST

36. Burris-Oak Hill Elementary xx
104 Ridge Road
Oak Hill
(904) 345-3453

37. Campbell Center xx
601 So. Keech Street
Daytona Beach
(904) 253-1686

38. Chisholm Center xx
577 Ronnoc Lane
New Smyrna Beach
(904) 428-2475

39. Daytona,Bedch Comm. College xx
500 Welch Boulevard, Bldgs. 14,16,2i
Daytona Beach

40. Edgewater Elementary xx
550 So. Old Count Road
Edgewater
(904) 427-5296

106

TABLE 15 (Cont.)

SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page 14 of 15

INSTITUTION (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS

Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulnerable
VOLUSIA County (continued) gory I gory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge
(Pubtic ShetteA,6 - EAST - continued)

41. Highlands-Hillcrest Elementary xx
323 Heineman Street
Daytona Beach
(904) 253-1891
(Note: medical Shelter only.)

42. Holly Hill Elementary xx
1049 Ridgewood Avenue
Holly Hill
(904) 252-6271

43. Holly Hill Junior High xx
1200 Center Street
Holly Hill
(904) 2S2-0421

44. Hurst Elementary xx
1340 Wright Street
Holl Hill
(9U,l@ 255-3846

45. Knights of Columbus Hall xx
509 No. Orange Street
New Smyrna Beach
(904) 427-4211
Ajedi,@al Shelter only.)

46. Mainland Junior High xx
215 Third Avenue
Daytona Beach
(904) 255-4561

47. Mainland Senior High xx
125 So. Clyde Morris
Daytona Beach
(904) 252-0401

48. New Smyrna Jr. High Xx
100 Live Oak Street
New Smyrna Beach
(904) 428-5792

49. North Ridgewood Elementary xx
365 No. Ridgewood Avenue
Daytona Beach
(904) 252-7322

50. Ormond Beach Elementary xx
100 Cordin Avenue
Onnund Beach
(904) 677-3611

107

TABLE 15 (Cont.)
SURGE VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS page 15-of 15

INSTITU11ON (address/phone) FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS
Cate, 1gCate- Cate- Cate- Cate- Not Vulnerable
VOLUSIA COUNTY (continued) gory ory 2 gory 3 gory 4 gory 5 to Surge
(Pub,tic She.tteA-i - EAST - continued)
51. Ormond Beach Junior High XX
151 Domicilio Avenue
Ormond Beach
(904) 677-7110

52. Ormond Beach Senior Citizens Center XX
194 West Granada Avenue
Ormond Beach
(904) 677-0311, Ext. 256
(Note: Medical Shelter only.)

53. R. Patillo Elementary
300 Sixth Street
New Smyrna Beach
(904) 427-1392

54. Port Orange Elementary XX
402 Dunlawton Avenue
Port Orange
(904) 767-0113

55. South Daytona Elementary XX
600 Elizabeth Place
South Daytona
(904) 767-0221

56. South Ridgewood Elementary XX
731 So. Ridgewood Avenue
Daytona Beach
(904) 252-0592

57. Spruce Creek Elementary XX
642 Taylor Road
Port Orange
(904) 788-1341

58. Spruce Creek Senior High XX
1484 Taylor Road
Port Orange
(904) 761-0220

59. Tomoka Elementary XX
R.F.D. I Old Tomoka Road
Ormond Beach
(904) 677-3822

60. Turie T. Small Elementary XX
800 South Street
Daytona Beach
(904) 252-4738

61. West Side Elementary XX
1210 Jimmy Ann Drive
Daytona Beach
(904) 253-1671

108

With the assistance of the East Central Florida Hospital Council, State
Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, Civil Defense officers and
other local officials, health care facilities within the study area were
identified. The predicted surge heights provided through the SPLASH II
model and the maps of flood-prone areas produced from the SPLASH II results
allow for assessing the flooding potential of group homes, hospitals, and
nursing homes.

As with public shelters, each health care facility was identified in regard
to its location within a vulnerable area. The flooding potential of group
homes, hospitals, and nursing homes in Brevard and Volusia counties is
summarized in Table 15. As Table 15 illustrates, there are two group
homes vulnerable in a category 1-2 storm and seven vulnerable in a category
3-5 storm. This analysis also identified three hospitals vulnerable to
storm surge in a category 1-2 storm and one vulnerable in a category 3-5
storm. Finally, nursing homes determined to be susceptible to storm surge
included two in a category 1-2 hurricane and six in a category 3-5
hurricane. This information on surge-threatened health care facilities was
also forwarded to local disaster preparedness officials and appropriate
medical officials. It is.recommended that Table 15 be used in defining
risk to host evacuation evacuation contingency plans for health care
facilities.

SHELTER DEMAND

Residents identified as potential evacuees in the Vulnerability Analysis
may seek various alternative forms of shelter at varying d'istances from
their points of origin. These alternatives may include local public
shelters, local hotels or motels, local friends' or relatives' homes, or
destinations further inland outside the residents' county.

The first step necessary in calculating public shelter demand is to
quantify these various shelter preferences. The Behavioral Survey
indicated that approximately 18.3% of the coastal residents sampled in the
survey intended to utilize public shelter facilities. In addition,'another
13% responded that they did not know what their destination would be. It
would not be expected that all of the respondents who have not made shelter
plans would seek public shelter, although a substantial number undoubtedly
would. Therefore, to arrive at possibly a "worst case" situation, one-
third of the "do not know"*responses were combined with the public shelter-
bound responses to provide a total percentage of the evacuation population
predicted to seek public shelter. These combined percentages add up to
22.3% of the evacuating population. The balance of the evacuating
residents would be expected to seek shelter at the homes of
friends/relatives, in hotels/motels, or travel outside the county. This
information is summarized in Table 16.

For comparison purposes, the percentage of residents in other coastal areas
of Florida seeking public shelter is,shown in Table 17. As can be seen,

109

TABLE 16-

BEHAVIORAL SURVEY RESPONSE DESTINATIONS

Destination:

Shelter 18.3%

Friend or Relative 38.1%

Hotel or Motel 30.6%

Do Not Know 13.0%.

110

TABLE 17

COMPARISON OF BEHAVIORAL SURVEYS WITHIN FLORIDA DESTINATIONS

Ea,st Centuce Ea,6t Centwl Lee Tampa Sanibet- Southwe6t Southea,6t
DESTINATION Ftokida Ftoxida County Bay Captiva FtoAida Ftokida
Coa6tat Intand

Shelter 18.3% 45.6% 21.0% 37.9% 8.1% 24.0% 23.1%

Friend or 38.1% 18.2% 25.8% 45.4% 13.0% 28.0%
Relative

.53.0%

Hotel or 30.6% 14.6% 18.8% 38.1% 42.0% 10.2%
Motel

Do Not Know 13.0% 21.6% 26.0% 17.4% 8.4% 21.0% 11.2%

there is a relatively low demand among East Central Florid *a coastal
residents for public shelter facilities when compared to other coastal
areas. It has been hypothesized that since many of the Brevard and Volusia
county residents had evacuated during Hurricane David in 1979, they may
have made plans for future evacuations. These plans often involve making
non-public shelter arrangements.

By applying the percentages from the Behavioral Survey to the total number
of persons threatened by an approaching hurricane, an assessment of total
shelter demand can be made.

SHELTER CAPACITY

It would be expected that shelter usage would vary, depending on the
intensity of the storm confronting the region and its point of landfall on
the coast. The identification of vulnerable areas and the population-at-
risk allows demand under various scenarios to be applied to the maximum
amount of shelter space available under those same scenarios.
In Brevard County, for a category 172 storm situation, there are currently
estimated to be 26,679 spaces available to meet a projected demand of
26,733 persons--resulting in a deficit of 54 spaces. This deficit
increases during a category 3-5 storm situation, where the capacity
decreases to 25,347 spaces but the demand increases to 28,385.

Within Volusia County, a sizable excess of shelter space is available
during each of the storm scenarios. In a category 1-2 storm, 31,921 spaces
exist to meet an anticipated demand by 10,599 persons, resulting in excess
capacity of 21,322 spaces. For a category 3-5 storm situation, the excess
capacity was calculated to be 7,218, resulting from a demand for 22,301
spaces and available spaces of 29,519.

PUBLIC SHELTER ASSIGNMENTS

For the purposes of this study, no formal assignment of shelters was made.
This was done in response to current policy in both Brevard and Volusia
counties, which discourages the designation of a particular shelter
location for a particular area of the county. The reasoning behind this
policy is that such a designation reduces the flexibility and options
available to local officials in opening specific shelters to meet changing
demands by limiting their ability to allocate limited manpower and
resources on an as-needed basis.

112

TABLE 18

Shelter Capacity

1-2 Storm 3-5 Storm

Brevard Co. Volusia Co. Brevard Co. Volusia Co.

Shelter
Capacity 26,679 31,921 25,347 29,519

minus

Shelter
Demand 269733 10,599 28,385 22,301

equals

Shelter
Capacity
Deficit -54 -3,038
or
Excess +21,322 +7,218

113

ALTERNATE SHELTERS

Due to the deficit of public shelter spaces in Brevard County, an
assessment of hotel/motel,units was made to determine if alternate shelter
space was available to accommodate the additional evacuees. Information
from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's Hotel/Motel
Inventory was used to identify the number of units existing in the county,
and information on seasonal occupancy rates was provided by Brevard County.

The time frame for calculating the seasonal occupancy rates was June-
November, the time period formally designated as hurricane season.
According to information provided, Brevard County experienced a 63%
occupancy rate during this period. The total number of hotel/motel units
which could be expected to be available for shelter may be obtained by
applying the 37% vacancy rates to the number of hotel/motel units in the
county.

In identifying possible alternate shelter capacities, the units considered
for shelter use were only those situated outside the identified vulnerable
areas in the inland portions of Brevard County. Generally, due to the
format in which the information is collected, this meant that hotel/motel
units lying east of 1-95 were not considered. In addition, the total
number of units identified were delineated by size, double- or single-room
occupancy. Following the general rule of thumb utilized in the Inland
Shelter Study, 90% of the units will be double rooms accommodating four
adults and 10% of the units will be single rooms accommodating two adults.
From this information, the capacity of unoccupied hotel/motel rooms was
calculated to be 8,561.

In assessing the impact of the potential alternate shelter inventory on
the shelter deficit that currently exists -in Brevard County, it is
important to consider those evacuees whose original intention was to seek
shelter in a hotel/motel. From the Behavioral Survey, 30.6% of the
residents listed "hotel/motel" as their planned destinations. Adding one-
third of the respondents who answered "do not know" increases the figure to
35%. Assuming half would attempt to do so within Brevard County,
approximately 21,000 residents would seek alternate shelters and the
existing capacity would not be sufficient to accommodate these evacuees.
Consequently, a deficit in hotel/motel units would occur without
considering the shelter demands of evacuees unable to find public shelter.

Two conclusions can be reached for this assessment. First, provisions must
be developed for "passing through" those evacuees unable to be sheltered in
Brevard County to inland counties. Second, ongoing efforts should be made
to identify and secure additional public shelters within Brevard County to
alleviate the anticipated shelter deficit.

114

TABLE 19

ALTERNATE SHELTER ANALYSIS -- BREVARD COUNTY

(Hotels/Motels)

Alternate Shelter Capacity 8,561

Category 1-2 Category 3-5

minus

Alternate Shelter Demand 20,702 21,980

equals

Alternate Shelter Deficit 12,141 13,419

plus

Public Shelter Deficit 54 3,038

equals

Total Alternate Shelter
Deficit 12,195 16,517

115

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ELEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Previous sections of the report have discussed the background conditions
which are to be used as the basis for estimating evacuation times. This
background data was developed from three major tasks which included: a
computer-based storm surge model defining the magnitude and extent of the
threat to the region's coast; a statistically significant investigation
predicting the probable behavior of coastal residents in a hurricane
emergency situation; and an inventory and analysis of the facilities and
resources available to local disaster preparedness officials to direct an
evacuation.

In performing these tasks, emphasis was placed on measuring as many of the
variables as possible to permit construction of a series of quantitative
evacuation scenarios. Each scenario developed represents a different
situation which may occur in terms of the magnitude of a storm approaching
the coast, the number of people affected, the availability of sheltering
facilities, and public response during an evacuation. Based upon this
information, traffic movements could then be developed which may
realistically simulate a one-time movement of evacuating vehicles over the
existing highway network.

This section of the report will discuss the assumptions and procedures used
in undertaking the transportation analysis and present an estimation of the
times required to evacuate the threatened areas of the region's coastal
counties. To provide local officials with a useful tool for making
decisions, both clearance time and evacuation time estimates have been
included as well as an explanatory text as to their significance to a safe
evacuation of the coastal areas. Data developed as part of the
transportation modeling effort has been included in the appendices.

STUDY APPROACH

The approach selected for conducting the transportation analysis was the
result of investigations of similar studies previously completed in the
State as well as a number of evacuation-related studies performed both in
Florida and other states. Emphasis was placed on selection of a
methodology which would not only provide a comprehensive investigation of
selected traffic movements for different hurritane situations but also a
methodology which could be packaged for future updating by local govern-
ments as population and roadway network changes occur. A major criterion
considered in this regard was development of procedures which did not
require use of the FDOT main frame computer facilities.

The objective of the transportation analysis is two-fold: first, to iden-
tify the period of time that is required to complete the movement of
traffic throughout the study area from locations of risk to areas of
safety; second, to relate this time to the time available before hurricane

117

conditions pose a threat to evacuating residents. The information
presented in this section provides both of these times which will allow
local officials an opportunity to amend the times as a situation develops.

METHODOLOGY

The following methodology was followed in developing the clearance time
estimates for the study.

Establish Evacuation Road Network

Activities performed for this work task focused on. developing a basic
evacuation road network for the two-county area.

Inventory Characteristics of Network Links

This task involved an inventory of the evacuation road network links for
input into the calculation of roadway capacities. Elements used in this
calculation included roadway widths, number of lanes, horizontal and
vertical alignment, intersection features such as green time to cycle
length ratios, percent trucks, and peak hour factors. Features such as
facility type and area type were also recorded for use in the calculations.

Establish Capacities of Evacuation Road Network

Using the data from the tasks above, calculations were made of the existing
capacities of the road network. Capacities were based upon Level of
Service D traffic conditions (as defined in the 1965 Highway Capacity
Manual), since evacuation traffic involves high volume to roadway capacity'
situations.

It was uncertain whether the causeways/bridge@s leading from the barrier
islands, or the intersections contained within the evacuation roadway
network, created the most restrictive points of traffic flow. Therefore,
roadway capacities inventoried in,the network links (above) were used to
develop intersection approach capacities in addition to link capacities.
This capacity determination assisted in developing alternative routing
strategies as well as metering traffic at critical links to determine
clearance times.

Trip Generation

This task involved the preparation of productions and attractions by:
Evacuation Zone; Hurricane Scenario; and Destination. Socio-economic
variables available through the 1980 Census data tapes were utilized to
calculate total evacuation vehicles for each evacuating zone according to
the selected storm scenario. These data were formatted by the proposed
destination of evacuees.

118

Distribution Analysis

This task distributed trips between evacuation zones (Productions) and
shelter destinations (Attractions). The primary inputs for this task were
the traffic generated by evacuation zones and probable destinations of
evacuees by zone. This information was derived from previous tasks and
material developed as part of Phase I of the ECFRPC's Hurricane Evacuation
Study.

Trip Assignment

This task assigned trips developed in the previous task to the established
evacuation road network. Vehicular trips, as opposed to person trips, were
used as the basis for this activity.

Critical Link Identification

Based on the information developed through the previous work tasks,
critical links of the evacuation network were identified. A series of
volume to capacity ratios (V/C) were calculated to determine which roadway
segments would be most congested in moving evacuation vehicles. The
volumes calculated incorporated all traffic movements anticipated to occur
on a roadway segment to ensure that all impacts were considered. The
crit*ical links identified through this task were used to calculate
clearance times for each assumed storm scenario and each tested behavioral
response parameter.

Clearance Time Analysis

Utilizing the identified critical links, this task estimated the clearance
times for each of the five regional scenarios. Traffic assignments
developed previously were loaded onto the network in accordance with three
public response distribution curves.

Clearance time estimates involved three separate calculations. These
included the time required to travel from the evacuation zone to the
critical point in the link, movement through the congested point on the
link, and travel to an acceptable shelter destination (or out of county).

Arrival times were calculated based on travel distance and travel speed
from the evacuating zone to the critical point on the roadway network.
Floating car technique measurements taken during peak hour conditions were
used to determine travel speed.

In the identified critical links, the total assigned volume exceeds the
link capacity, causing a queue to form. The queue will only dissipate at a
rate approximately equal to the link capacity, requiring excess vehicles
assigned to the link to wait until the following hourly interval. The sum

119

of the intervals requi-red to clear the link is the queuing delay --fi-m-e-
experienced. In determining the queuing delay time for each of the
critical links, two factors were considered. First, as the rate at which
traffic enters the critical link dictates the amount of time in which it
can be cleared, various arrival rates derived from the behavioral
response curves were considered as well as each of the five hurricane
scenarios. Second, background traffic influences the amount of congestion
experienced at each critical link. Therefore, the arrival rate of this
traffic was factored into the analysis.

Link travel time, which is the time necessary to clear evacuation traffic
from the critical link once past the critical point of congestion, was
calculated based on travel speeds and distance to the most distant
destination.

TRANSPORTATION MODELING INPUT ASSUMPTIONS

The transportation analysis provides clearance times based on a set of
assumed conditions and behavioral responses. An actual storm approaching
the Brevard and Volusia coastal areas will almost certainly deviate in some
way from the scenarios used for this modeling effort. Considering the
numerous variables involved in defining a hurricane--such as size, track,
intensity and how it is perceived by residents--this should not be
surprising.

To accommodate the differences between the scenarios and what may actually
occur, and to provide a useful tool for local officals, those variables
having the greatest influence on clearance times were identified and then
varied. This allowed for a range within which the true clearance time
value might fall.

Regional Storm Scenarios

As mentioned in previous sections of the report, 74 hypothetical hurricanes
were simulated using the National Hurricane Center's computer models.
Storms were varied by point of landfall, Saffir-Simpson category, and
general movement. Calculation of clearance times for all simulated storms,
however, would be cumbersome and unusable for local emergency preparedness
officials, and also inappropriate, given the limitations of current
hurricane forecasting and storm surge simulation. Therefore, five regional
storms were selected for use in the transportation analysis.
Table 20 provides the regional storm number, the counties affected, and a
brief description of each selected storm. These storms were chosen from
the 74 storms modeled by selecting the storm tracks causing the greatest
storm surge impacts on various portions of an individual county. A
paralleling storm was included to examine the transportation impacts to the
region resulting from a progressive evacuation of counties along the east
coast of the State.

120

TABLE 20

TRANSPORTATION MODELING REGIONAL STORM SCENARIOS

Regional Storm
Number Storm Description Volusia Brevard

I Category 1-2 landfalling x A
storm at Melbourne

2 Category 3-5 landfalling A B
sto.,@,m at Melbourne

3 Category 1-2 landfalling A x
storm at New Smyrna Beach

4 Category 3-5 landfalling B A
storm at New Smyrna Beach

5 Paralleling storm regionwide A A

Key:
X = no evacuation required
A = Category 1-2 storm
B = Category 3-5 storm

121

It is important to note t hat the five Saffir-Simpson categories of storms
have been collapsed into two ranges for each county. This was done
recognizing the similarities of storm surge heights for different
.intensities of storms and realizing the manner in which storms change
intensity over time. For both Brevard and Volusia counties, storms were
grouped into Category 1-2 and Category 3-5.

Population-at-Risk

One of the key inputs to the transportation analysis was an identification
of those residents who should evacuate for a particular storm situation.
Through the hazard analysis, those areas subject to flooding from both
storm surge and freshwater were delineated and the number of residents in
those areas calculated. This allowed for an identification of those
residents who must evacuate for each storm scenario as well as those
residents who need not evacuate. The transportation analysis then produces
clearance times which reflect only needed evacuation movements.

Behavioral and Socio-Economic Assumptions

To perform the transportation analysis, a number of assumptions were made
concerning how the population-at-risk would respond relative to an
evacuation order, how many of the available vehicles at residential
locations would be used for evacuation, and what percentage of the evacuees
would go to various catedories of destinations. A number of assumptions
were made concerning dwelling unit and hotel/motel occupancies and number
of persons per mobile home and hotel/motel unit.

To determine the percentage of persons who would leave during each hourly
interval of the evacuation, three behavioral response curves were developed
for the region. One curve approximated a long lead time provided by the
National Weather Service and a slow response by evacuees; a second curve
reflected a situation with a short lead time and a quick response required
by those choosing to evacuate; a third curve was similar to the response
rate provided by the behavioral survey, with some adjustment made to fit
between the first and second curves.

Response curves define the rate at which evacuation vehicles load onto the
street network at hourly intervals. By examining three different rates of
response, reflecting responses reported during previous hurricane
evacuations, a range of times may be provided into which-the-actual time of
an evacuation will fall. The response curves used for this study are
depicted in Figure 15,
In addition to evacuating traffic, background traffic was added to the
calculations to account for those persons traveling to stores or homes.
Consistent with previous hurricane studies completed in the State, this

122

FIGURE 15

ESTIMATION OF CUMULATIVE DEMAND

Behavioral Response Curves

100

90 Quick Resp(nse

W
F= 70
0
\\.Slow Response
60

(A
a)

U 50
fo

4J 40
Behavioral Survey
S- Response

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

hours before evacuation hours after
o
order order rder

123

traffic was hypothesized to load onto street networks in an inverse manner
relative to the behavioral response curves. As an example, two to five
hours before an evacuation order is given when the first 20-30% of
evacuees are leaving home, 70-80% of the background traffic will be loading
onto the street network.

Several other assumptions used in developing the transportation model
included:

A) 2 persons/household
1.9 persons/mobile home

B) 1.5 vehicles per household
.89 vehicles per person (Brevard County)
.77 vehicles per person (Volusia County)

C) 10% of vehicles will be used in an evacuation
@1.905 persons/vehicles (Brevard County)
2.204 persons/vehicles (Volusia County)

D) Due to adverse weather conditions, such as rain and wind, capacity
of roads is reduced to about 84% of dry weather capacity.

In developing these assumptions, the total number of vehicles by evacuation
zone was derived from information provided by the Division of. Motor
Vehicles on the number of registered vehicles in each county. This number
was compared to the population of the county to arrive at a ratio of
vehicles to people and then multiplied by the population of each zone.

Roadway System and Traffic Control Assumptions

In the selection of roadways to be used, an effort was made to include only
those street facilities with sufficient elevations, little or no adjacent
tree coverage, substantial shoulder width and surface, and those roadways
already contained in existing county hurricane evacuation plans. An
additional objective was to provide east-west arterials and bridge
combinations that would afford the least disjointed traffic flow. In
selecting roadways on the mainland, efforts were also undertaken to omit
lengthy north-south movements which may interfere with traffic evacuating
from the barrier islands.

Relocation of the threatened population required the use of all major east-
west routes in the two-county study area. The lack of alternative routing
movements, in many instances, prevented the omission of a particular
roadway which did not meet all of the established criteria. The major
deficiency in this regard was the lack of sufficient elevation at points
along a roadway which could prevent freshwater flooding. This was the case
for roadways both on the barrier islands as well as on the mainland.

124

TABLE 21

Vehicle Productions
Category 1-2 Storm Situation

Volusia County

Zone 1 2 3 4
A B

vi 368 83 105 51 129
V2 -- -- -- -- --
V3 243 55 69 34 85
V4 409 185 116 57 143
V5 -- -- -- -- --
V6 646 146 184 90 226
V7 512 116 145 33 179
V8 -- -- -- --
V9 99 23 28 14 34
VIO 265 60 75 37 92
Vil -- -- -- -- --
V12 517 117 147 72 181
V13 505 114 143 71 177
V14 -- -- -- --
V15 405 91 115 57 142

VI 6. 262 59 74 37 '92
V17 -- -- -- -- --
V18 196 45 56 27 68
V19 277 175 220 189 271
V20 70 16 20 10 24
V21 -- -- -- -- --
V22 -- -- -- -- --
V23 2,036 460 578 285 713
V24 50 11 14 7 17
V25 -- -- --
V26 695 157 198 97 243
V27 545 123 155 76 191

V28 236 53 67 33 83
V29 154 35 44 21 54
V30 3,329 752 946 466 1,165
V31 3,131 708 889 438 1,096
V32 -- -- -- --
V33 -- -- -- --
V34 468 106 133 65 164
V35 264 60 75 37 112
V36 -- -- -- -- --
V37 102 23 29 14 36
V38 139 31 39 20 49

125

TABLE 21 (cont.)

Zone 1 2 3 4
A B

V39 239 54 68 33 84
V40 39 9 11 5 14
V41 -- -- -- -- --
V42 363 82 103 51 127
V43 37 8 11 6 13
V44 208 47 59 29 73
V45 385 87 109 54 135
V46 247 56 70 35 86

V47 -- -- -- -- --
V48 -- -- -- -- --
V49 1,175 265 334 164 411

V50 58 13 16 9 20
V51 221 50 63 31 77
V52 698 158 198 98 244
V53 438 99 124 62 153
V54 37 8 11 5 13
V55 1,605 361 456 225 562
V56 394 89 112 55 138
V57 381 86 109 53 133

Key:

1 Total Vehicle Productions
2 Public Shelters
3A Friend or Relative (in county)
3B Friend or Relative (out of county)
4 Hotel or Motel

126

TABLE 21 (cont.)

Vehicle Productions
Category 3-5 Storm Situation

Volusia County

Zone 1 2 3 4
A B

V 1 368 83 105 51 129
V2 4,765 1,077 1,353 667 1,668
V3 243 55 69 34 85
V4 409 185 116 57 143
V5 3,589 811 1,020 502 1,256
V6 646 146 184 90 226
V7 512 116 145 72 179
V8 2,056 465 584 288 719
-V9 99 23, 28 14 34
VIO 265 60 75 37 92
Vil 997 225 283 140 349
V12 517 117 147 72 181
V13 505 114 143 71 177
V14 956 216 272 134 334
V15 405 91 115 57 142

V16 262 59 74 37 92
vi @, 1,547 350 439 216 541
V18 196 45 56 27 68
V19 775 175 219 108 271
V20 70 16 20 10 24
V21 389 88 110 55 136
V22 1,119 253 318 156 392
V23 2,036 460 578 285 713
V24 360 81 102 51 126
V25 -- -- -- -L --
V26 695 157 197 98 243
V27 545 123 155 76 191

V28 236 53 67 33 83
V29 154 35 44 21 54
V30 3,329 752 946 466 1,165
V31 3,131 707 890 438 1,096
V32 175 39 50 25 61
V33 909 205 259 127 318
V34 468 106 133 65 164
V35 264 60 75 37 92
V36 853 193 243 119 298
V37 102 23 29 14 36
V38 139 31 40 19 49

127

TABLE 21 (cont.)

Zone 1 2 A 3 B 4

V39 239 54 68 33 84
V40 399 90 113 56 140
V41 -- -- -- -- --
V42 3,264 738 927 457 1,142
V43 788 178 224 110 276
V44 208 47 59 29 73
V45 711 160 .202 100 249
V46 247 56 70 35 86

V47 -- -- -- -- --
V48 -- -- -- -- --
V49 1,175 266 334 164 411

V50 58 13 17 8 20
V51 221 50 63 31 77
V52 698 158 198 98 244
V53 438 99 125 61 153
V54 37 9 10 5 13
V55 1,605 363 456 224 562
V56 394 89 112 55 138
V57 381 86 109 53 133

Key:

1 Total Vehicle Productions
2 Public Shelters
3A Friend or Relative (in county)
3B Friend or Relative (out of county)
4 Hotel or Motel

128

TABLE 21 (cont.)

Vehicle Productions
Category 1-2 Storm Situation

Brevard County

Zone 1 2 3 4
A B

B1 4,559 1,031 1,021 912 1,595
B2 52253 1,187 1,177 1,051 1,838
B3 11,602 2,621 2,599 29321 4,061
B4 6,896 1,559 1,545 1,379 2,413
B5 3,667 829 822 733 1,283
B6 363 82 81 72 128

B7 8,089 1,828 1,812 1,618 2,831
B8 124 39 35 22 38
B9 5,830 1,317 1,306 1,166 2,041
B10 581 131 131 116 203

B11 1,093 247 245 218 383
B12 6 2 1 1 2
B13 85 19 19 17 30
B14 779 176 174 156 272
B15 845 191 1-89 169 296
B16 506 114 114 101 177
B17 972 220 218 M 340
B18 2,527 571 566 505 885
B19 456 103 102 91 160
B20 90 20 20 18 32
B21 1,023 231 229 205 358
B22 1,004 227 225 201 351
B23 2,260 511 507 452 790
B24 1,307 296 293 261 457
B25 1,963 444 440 393 686
B26 226 51 51 45 79
B27 22 5 5 4 8
B28 65 15 15 13 22
B29 40 9 9 8 14

Key: I = Total Vehicle Productions
2 = Public Shelters
3A = Friend or Relative (in county)
3B = Friend or Relative (out of county)
4 = Hotel or Motel

129

TABLE 21 (cont.)

Vehicle Productions
Category 3-5 Storm Situation

Brevard County

Zone 1 2 3 4

B1 4,559 1,031. 1,021 912 1,595
B2 59253 1,187 1,177 1,051 1,838
B3 11,602 2,621 2,599 2,321 4,061
B4 6,896 11,559 1,545 1,379 2,413
B5 3,667 829 822 733 1,283
B6 363 82 81 72 128
B7 8,089 1,828 1,812 1,618 2,831
B8 3,806 860 853 761 1,332
B9 5,830 1,317 1,306 19166 2,041
BIO 581 131 131 116 203
B11 1,093 247 245 218 383
B12 31 7 7 6 11
B13 85 19 19 17 30
B14 779 176 174 156 272
B15 845 191 189. 169 296
B16 506 114 114 101 177
B17 972 220 218 194 340
B18 2,527 571 566 505 885
B19 456 103 1.02 91 160
B20 90 20 20 18 32
B21 1,023 231 229 209 358
B22 1,004 227 225 201 351
.B23 2,260 511 507 452 790
B24 1,307 296 293 261 457
B25 1,963 444 440 393 686
B26 226 51 51 45 79
B27 22 5 5 4 8
B28 65 15 15 13 22
B29 40 9 9 8 14

Key: I = Total Vehicle Productions
2 = Public Shelters
3A = Friend or Relative (in county)
3B = Friend or Relative (out of county)
4 = Hotel or Motel

130

EVACUATION ROUTING SCHEME
Brevard County
Evacuation Evacuation Routing Scheme------
Zone(s) Route Intra-County Evacuation Leaving the County

Bl AIA Exit west on SR 528 (Bennett Cswy/Memorial Continue west on SR 528.
Cswy) using up to 3 lanes as directed.
B2 AlA Exit west on SR 520 (Hubert Humphrey Brdg/ Continue west on SR 528.
Merritt Island Cswy) using@jup to 3 lanes
as directed.
B3 AlA Exit west on SR 404 (Pineda Cswy) using up Take Wickham Rd. (SR 509) north to 1-95.
to 3 lanes as directed. Head north on 1-95 to SR 520. Exit west
on SR 520.

B4 AlA & Patrick Exit west on SR 518 (Eau Gallie Cswy). Take Eau Gallie Blvd. west to US 1. Go
Dr. south on US 1 to Sarno Dr. Head west on
Sarno Dr. to John B. Rodes Blvd. (SR 511).
Take SR 511 south to US 192. Exit west on
US 192.
rn
B5 AIA xit west on US 192 (Melbourne Cswy). Continue west on US 192.
B6 AlA Exit west on SR 510.(Indian River Co.).
B7, B8 Courtenay Pkwy. xit west on SR .528 (Bennett Cswy.) using Continue west on SR 528.
(SR 3) & up to 3 lanes as directed.
Banana Dr.

B9 Courtenay Pkwy. Exit west on SR 520 (Merritt Island Cswy/ Exit west on SR 520.
(.SR 3), Hubert Humphrey Brdg.) using up to 3 lanes
Tropical Trl. & as directed.
New Found Harbor
Dr.
BIO Tropical Trl. Exit west on SR 404 (Pineda Cswy) using up Take Wickham Rd. (SR 509) north to 1-95.
(SR 3) to 3 lanes as directed. Head north on 1-95 to SR 520. Exit west
on SR 520.

EVACUATION ROUTING SCHEME
Brevard Co. (cont.)

Evacuation Evacuation Routing Scheme
Zone(s) Route Intra-County Evacuation Leaving the County
B12, B13 us I Exit west on SR 46. Continue west on SR 46.
B14 us 1 Exit west on SR 50. Continue west on SR 50.
B16 us 1 Exit west on SR 405 to SR 50. Continue west on SR 50.
B18 Exit west on SR 520. Continue west on SR 520.
B20 us I Exit west on Wickham Rd. (SR 509) Take Wickham Rd. (SR 509) north to 1-95.
Head north on 1-95 to SR 520. Exit west
on SR 520.
B22 us I Exit west on Eau Gallie Blvd. Take Eau Gallie Blvd. west to US 1. Go
south on US 1 to Sarno Dr. Head west on
Sarno Dr. to John B. Rodes Blvd. (SR 511)
Take SR 511 south to US 192. Exit west on :r-
US 192.
M

M
B24 us I Exit west on US 192. Continue west on US 192.

Exit west on Malabar Rd. (SR 514) Take SR 514 to Minton Dr. (SR 509) Go 0
north on SR 509 to US 192. Exit west on
US 192.
B26 us I Exit west on Malabar Rd. (SR 514) Take Sk 51-4@to-,Ninton Dr. (SR 509) Go
north on SR 509 to US 192. Exit west on
US 192.

EVACUATION ROUTING SCHEME
Volusia County
Routing Scheme
Evacuation Evacuation,,
Zone( Route Intra-Coun@y Evacuation Leaving the County
V1, V2, V3 AIA & John Exit west on SR 40 (Ormond Bridge) Continue west on SR 40.
Anderson Dr.

V4, V5, V6 AIA & Halifax Exit west on Seabreeze Blvd. (Seabreeze Continue west On Mason Ave. to Williamson
Dr. Bridge) using both lanes as directed. Blvd. Take Williamson Blvd. north to
llth St. Head west on 11th St. to US 92.
Exit west on US 92.

V7, V8,,V9 AIA & Halifax Exit west on US 92 (Carlton Blank Bridge) Continue west on US 92.
Dr. using up to 4 lanes as directed.
V10, Vil, AlA & Halifax Exit west on Silver Beach Ave. (Memorial) Turn south on US 1 to Beville Ave. Head
V12 Dr. Bridge) using both lanes as directed.. west on Beville Ave. to 1-4. Continue west
on 1-4

V13, V14, AlA & Halifax Exit west on Dunlawton Ave. (.Port Orange Continue west on SR 415.
V15 Dr. Bridge, SR 415) W
rr
V32-V38 AlA & Saxon Dr. Exit west on either the North Cswy (SR 40A:Continue west on SR 44.
or South Cswy (SR 44). Note: SR 40A merges into SR 44.

V16, V17 us 1 Exit west on SR 40. Continue west on SR 40.
V18, V19 us I Exit west on Mason Ave.; or Continue west on Mason Ave. to Williamson
Blvd. Take Williamson Blvd. north to
Exit west on 11th St. llth St. Head west on llth St. to US 92.
Exit west on US 92.

V20, V21 us I Exit west on US 92. Continue west on US 92.

V23 us I Exit west on Beville Ave. Continue west on 1-4.

V24 us I Exit west on SR 415. Continue west on SR 415.

V39, V40, US I& SR 40A Exit west on SR 40A. Continue on,SR 40A to SR 44. Continue
V42 est on SR 44.

EVACUATION ROUTING SCHEME
Volusia Co."(cont.)

Evacuation Evacuation Routing Scheme
Zone(s) Route Intra-County Evacuation Leaving the County

V43, V44 us 1 Exit west on SR 44. Continue west on SR 44.

V 45, V46 us 1 Exit west on CR 442. Continue west on CR 422 to 1-95. Take 1-95
north to SR 44. Exit onto SR 44 and head
west.

V48 SR 44 Exit- west on SR 44. Continue west on SR 44.

An important input into-the transportation model was the traffic control
assumptions. In most cases, these assumptions were based upon the traffic
control procedures currently in place in each of the two counties and
outlined in each county's Peacetime Emergency Plan. Examples of the
assumptions used include: intersections blocked off to allow only east-
west traffic movements; light signalization, stationing of traffic control
personnel to direct vehicle flow; and number of lanes available for
evacuation.

Several other assumptions were used for the transportation modelling.
First, all bridges from the barrier islands to the mainland were assumed to
be down and to remain down during a hurricane warning period. (U.S. Coast
Guard Regulation 33-117-C and FDOT procedure 571-004, 6, p. 15, provide
Civil Defense officials with the authority to implement this procedure.)
Second, it was assumed that adequate manpower was available for assignment
to critical intersections to allow for smooth traffic flow. Last, the
transportation model assumed that vehicles breaking down on the roadways
would be removed in such manner so as not to cause any significant delays
in the movement of evacuating vehicles.

Evacuation Travel Patterns

For the purposes of this analysis, traffic movements associated with
hurricane evacuation scenarios were identified. As in previous evacuation
studies completed in the State, five general patterns were delineated:

1) in-County Origins to In-County Destinations

Trips made from areas subject to both storm surge and
freshwater flooding, and from mobile home units, in an individual
county to destinations within the same county. These destina-
tions may be Red Cross shelters, hotel and motel units, and
friends or relatives living outside flooding areas.

2) in-County Origins to Out-of-County Destinations

Trips made from areas as in (1) that enter a particular county
from another county in the region.

3) Out-of-County Origins to In-County Destinations

Trips made as in (1) that enter a particular county from
another county in the region.

4) Out-of-County Origins to Out-of-County Destinations

Trips passing through a county while traveling from another
county within or without the region.

134

5) Background Traffic

Trips made by people anticipating the arrival of hurricane
conditions. These may be shopping trips to gather supplies
and/or trips from places of work to home to gather the family for
evacuation. This traffic also includes transit vehicles (buses)
used to pick up auto-less evacuees.

EVACUATION TIME REQUIREMENTS

Evacuation Times by County

As stated previously, the objective of the transportation analysis was to
calculate clearance time (the time it takes to clear a county's roadway of
all evacuating vehicles) and to relate that clearance time to an evacuation
order (the time before hurricane eye landfall at which an evacuation order
must be given to allow all evacuees to reach appropriate. destinations).
With regard to clearance time estimates, the primary factor affecting the
amount of time required was the rate by which people responded (evacuated)
to a hurricane situation. This meant that the minimum times required to
clear a county's roadway network were--depending upon the response curve
applied during the analysis--5, 7, or 14 hours. The second most important
factor that influenced the initial clearance time calculations was the
extremely high vehicle to capacity ratio for certain links of the roadway
network. While most roadways could accommodate evacuating traffic within a
time approximating the response times tested, a few links greatly surpassed
this time. This resulted in an increase of a county's total clearance time
above what is actually required to evacuate a majority of a county's
threatened population. A third influencing factor was the storm intensity
of the various scenarios modeled. For Volusia County, in particular, a
larger storm dramatically increased the numbers of persons affected and,
therefore, loaded onto the transportation system.

Table :23 provides ;the evacuation timing data calculated and developed
for Brevard and Volusia counties. These tables have been formatted to show
both pre-evacuation order clearance time and post-evacuation order
clearance time. Post-evacuation order clearance time is calculated. by
subtracting the pre-evacuation order time, as shown on the behavioral
response curves, from total clearance time. Post-evacuation order
clearance time is then added to pre-landfall hazards time to arrive at the
time required for an evacuation order to be issued. The format of these
tables has been developed to provide consistency between this study and
previous studies conducted in the State.

As a further explanation of the evacuation time components, the following
definitions are provided:

Clearance time: Clearance time is the time required to clear from roadways
all vehicles evacuating in response to an approaching hurricane.
Clearance time begins when the first evacuating vehicle enters the
road network (in accordance with a hurricane evacuation behavioral
response curve) and ends when the evacuating vehicle reaches its

135

TABLE 23

TRANSPORTATION EVACUATION TIMES

BREVARD COUNTY

Storm Pre-Evacuation Order Post-Evacuation Order Pre-Landfall Time Required for
Category Clearance Time Clearance Time Hazards Time Evacuation Order

Response Curve A:
Quick Response/Short Lead Time
1-2 2 3-6 4-6 7-12
3-5 2 4-6 7-11 11-17

Response Curve B:
Behavioral Survey Response
1-2 3 4-7 4-6 8-13
3-5 3 5-8 7-11 12-19

Response Curve C:
Slow Response/Long Lead Time
1-2 6 8 4-6 12-14
3-5 6 8 7-11 15-19

TABLE 23 (cont.)

TRANSPORTATION EVACUATION TIMES

VOLUSIA COUNTY

Storm Pre-Evacuation Order Post-Evacuation Order Pre-Landfall Time Required for
Category Clearance Time Clearance Time Hazards Time Evacuation Order

Response Curve A:
Quick Response/Short Lead Time

1-2 2 3-5 4-6 7-11

3-5 2 3-6 7-11 10-17

Response Curve B:
Behavioral Survey Response

1-2 3 4-6 4-6 8-12

3-5 3 5-8 7-11 1.3-19

Response Curve C:
Slow Response/Long Lead Time

1-2 6 8-11 4-6 12-17

3-5 6 9-12 7-11 16-23

destination. Clearance time includes the time required by evacuees to
secure their homes and prepare to leave, the time spent by evacuees
traveling along the road network, and the time spent by evacuees
waiting to clear points of congestion along the network. Clearance
time does not relate to the time any one vehicle spends traveling on
the road network.

Pre-landfall hazards time: Pre-landfall hazards time is the time frame
immediately before eye landfall within which evacuation should not be
carried out, due to the adverse effects of the arrival of sustained
gale force winds.

Pre-evacuation order time: Pre-evacuation order time refers to a period of
time prior to issuance of the evacuation order, in which a certain
percent of evacuees have already left home and have entered the road
network. This percentage is determined by the behavioral response
curve used.

Evacuation order time: Evacuation order time is the time in hours before
hurricane eye landfall in which an evacuation order must be given to
allow all evacuees to reach their chosen destinations.

Brevard County

During any given hurricane situation, in excess of 90% of the evacuating
population in Brevard County will utilize the five bridges/causeways which
span the Indian and Banana rivers. Those roadway links leading to the
bridges, principally AlA, as well as the bridges themselves, were found to
be the most critical in terms of their ability to handle the projected
volumes of traffic. Two of the bridges, in particular, were found to
experience large amounts of congestion for each of the response curves
tested.

In conducting the transportation analysis, initial clearance time estimates
were made based upon the evacuation zone configurations previously
discussed and traffic movements associated with these configurations.
These traffic movements were similar to those currently outlined in the
Brevard County Peacetime Emergency Plan which attempts to evenly distribute
the traffic from the beachside evacuation zones among the county's five
bridges/causeways.

Utilizing these traffic movements, the Eau Gallie Causeway experienced the
greatest queuing delay of any of the roadways tested. The following table
shows clearance time estimates for the causeway for each response curve by
storm situation.

Storm Situation
Res2onse Curve 1_2 3--5

Quick Response 12.63 hrs. 12.63 hrs.
Behavioral Response 14.36 hrs. 14.36 hrs.
Slow Response 16.10 hrs. 16.10 hrs.

138

These times greatly exceeded what was required to evacuate other areas of
the barrier island--in many cases, doubling the time necessary to clear the
roadways. Consequently, efforts were undertaken to redirect portions of

the evacuation zonal population to other roadways experiencing less delay.
.To reduce the number of vehicles using Eau Gallie Causeway, approximately
60% of the population was distributed to Pineda Causeway to the north and
Melbourne Causeway to the south. This allowed for a reduction of the
clearance times at Eau Gallie Causeway to that approximating the behavioral
response curve lines, while having almost a negligible effect on the times
for Pineda and Melbourne causeways.

SR 520 also experienced an inordinate amount of congestion relative to the
other bridges/causeways in the county. While not as critical as that found
at the Eau Gallie Causeway, the congestion was sufficient to increase
clearance times almost five hours above that of the behavioral response
times. Therefore, an additional evacuation lane was added to the causeway,
providing for an increase of 504 vhp. This allowed the time required for
clearing the link to be reduced by approximately three hours.

Volusia County

The situation in Volusia County is almost the reverse of that in Brevard.
Whereas the population centers in Brevard County are on the vulnerable
barrier islands, the majority of Volusia County's population resides on
the mainland. While most of these mainland residents would not be expected
to evacuate during the hurricane, their presence as background traffic
causes queuing delays to occur at several of the major intersections
through which evacuating traffic from vulnerable areas must pass. It is
the delay at these intersections which determine the county's overall
clearance times. Efforts made by county officials to reduce the background
traffic preceding and during,an evacuation would have significant effects
on the time necessary to clear the county's roadways.

Evacuation Times by Regional Storm Scenario

Five regional storm scenarios were developed for transportation modeling
purposes. As mentioned previously, each regional storm scenario involves a
different storm track and/or intensity, thereby creating varying storm
effects in each of the two counties. Using the evacuation times discussed
previously, Table 24 has been developed to provide generalized evacuation
order times by each regional scenario. The times are general in that the
behavioral survey response curve time has been used.

139

TABLE 24

REGIONAL STORM SCENARIOS
REQUIRED TIME FOR EVACUATION ORDER BY COUNTY

Regional Time before Eye Landfall (Hrs.)
Storm Number Storm Description Volusia Brevard

I Category 1-2 Storm x 8-13

2 Category 3-5 Storm 8-12 12-19

3 Category 1-2 Storm 8-12 x

4 Category 3-5 Storm 13-19 8-13

5 Paralleling Storm Regionwide 8-12 8-13

X No storm surge; little to no evacuation required.

140

WARNING ELEMENT

EXISTING WARNING SYSTEM

The existing warning system is composed of several key entities of federal,
state, and local governments. Each of these plays an important role in
disseminating and interpreting hurricane hazard information as a storm
approaches the State's coast.

In the event of a hurricane threatening the coast of East Central Florida,
the following entities would be involved in the warning process:

National Hurricane Center (NHC)
Florida Bureau of Emergency Management
Daytona Beach Area--National Weather Service
Area Coordinator/Florida Bureau of Emergency Management
Volusia County Civil Defense Office
Brevard County Civil Defense Office
Municipal Disaster Preparedness offices
Public Media (radio/TV)

Figure 16presents a schematic of this warning system.

The interpretation and dissemination of emergency information concerning an
approaching hurricane by and between the government entities detailed above
are geared to the particular characteristics of a storm and resulting
conditions assigned to elicit specific and appropriate levels of readiness
and response from the local areas placed under these conditions. The two
primary conditions are the "hurricane watch" and "hurricane warning."
These conditions are announced for a specific stretch of coastline as part
of one of the advisories that are normally issued by the NHC every six
hours during the approach of a storm. A Hurricane Watch condition placed
on a specified area means that hurricane conditions are a real possibility
in that area; a Hurricane Warning condition placed on an area (usually a
250-mile stretch of coastline, as opposed to a Watch condition area of 500
miles) means that hurricane conditions can be expected in that area within
24 hours.

The time frame for warning activities is desribed below, with key warning
system conditions and activities related to hurricane eye landfall.

o 72-hour advisory -- Storm-assigned category number on Saffir-Simpson
Scale by NHC.

o 48 hours before projected eye landfall Local areas placed under
Hurricane Watch condition by NHC.

o 24 hours before projected eye landfall Local areas placed under
Hurricane Warning condition by NHC.

141

Figure 16

HURRICANE WARNING SYSTEM

(Federal) NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER (NHC)

(State) FLORIDA BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

(Areawide) Area Offices of Area Coordinator
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FLORIDA BUREAU OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT

(Local) Brevard Co. Civil Defense Public Media:
Volusia Co. Civil Defense Radio
Municipal Disaster Television
Preparedness Offices

142

o 12-24 hours before projected eye landfall -- Local area advised to
evacuate by NHC advisory or local National Weather Service office.

o Chief elected official for particular county advised by Disaster
Preparedness department to issue evacuation order for its
jurisdiction.

o Evacuation order issued.

o Evacuation order disseminated to the public by public media and/or
emergency response agencies.

In discussing the existing warning system, two considerations should be
noted-

1) Hurricane movement is difficult to predict beyond a certain time
frame.

2) Evacuation decisions that are made without accurate information
may have adverse effects.

The first consideration often leads to the second. The average landfall
point projection error in a 24-hour forecast is in the range of 100
nautical -miles. Within that "error" range, some areas will experience
flooding conditions and others will not. This uncertainty about which
areas will be affected leads to the dilemma facing decision-makers. Areas
needlessly evacuating undergo the expense and potential hazards associated
with a mass evacuation, while other areas failing to evacuate due to
insufficient notice may face the threats to the public safety from the
storm.

The information made available through this technical data report provides
local officials with an indication of the areas subject to tidal flooding
and the steps necessary to carry out an evacuation. Consideration of the
evacuation times presented in previous sections of the report are one part
of the decision-making process, serving as a tangible basis against which
the probabilities and impacts of a hurricane may be weighed before an
evacuation order is issued.

GUIDE FOR EVACUATION DECISION-MAKING

Interpreting NHC hurricane information and implementing proper emergency
preparedness measures by local officials require knowledge of the common
data base set forth in this study. This data base will enable the
coordination of evacuation decisions during a hurricane approach and
comparison to SPLASH II computer runs of the actual approaching hurricane
by the NHC. This, in turn, will provide local disaster preparedness
officials with a high level of information from which the actual storm
conditions and impacts may be interpreted.

143

There are several steps which can be taken by local officials as part of
the decision-making process based upon the information contained in this
study. These steps are identified and discussed below.

1) Identify Storm Characteristics

Storms are generally assigned a Saffir/Simpson Scale category number
by the NHC while the storm is 72 hours away from landfall. A
situation may arise where the category changes during the lifetime of
the storm, requiring the storm to be re-identified.

The next step will be to eliminate various hurricanes simulated
through the SPLASH II model based upon the type of track detected by
the NHC for the actual hurricane. As the storm moves toward the
State, its potential for approaching the region on a landfalling,
paralleling, or exiting track may be more easily discerned. It is
important to note that any elimination or focus of preparedness for
particular hurricanes must be tentative because of the ability of any
storm to rapidly change direction during its movement.

2) Identification of Evacuation Scenario Confronting the Region

The next step in interpreting the expected local effects of an
approaching storm is to identify the level of threat that would
confront the counties if the actual hurricane continued its current
approach.

As the decision-maker focuses upon a certain scenario, the predicted
surge heights and wind speeds associated with a probable storm can be
identified. This identification may provide the disaster preparedness
officials with the first indication of the level of population that
must be evacuated, zones to be evacuated, and public shelters which
should not be utilized for that particular scenario.

3) Identification of Evacuation Time Confronting the Region

Based upon the preceding steps, it is possible to gauge the minimum
time needed for a successful evacuation. This enables the decision-
maker to know when an evacuation order must be issued in relation to
eye landfall, so that the evacuation is safely completed prior to the
arrival of hurricane hazards. These times are provided in the
previous section of the report.

4) Adapt-ion to Actual Conditions

The last step to be taken by officials is to adjust the evacuation
time based on actual conditions. An adjustment to the times set forth

144

may be necessary due to one or more of the following conditions:

a) Public behavior
b) Early arrival of heavy rains
c) Characteristic changes, forward speed, or conditions close
to eye landfall

PUBLIC BEHAVIOR

Past studies have indicated--and investigations of evacuee behavior during
hurricanes David and Frederick appear to confirm--that approximately 20% of
the population threatened will leave prior to issuance of an evacuation
order. This figure was common to each of the behavioral response curves
tested in the study and helped determine the mobilization time periods
used. The mobilization times represent the lower limit of time required to
evacuate a county. For example, in a quick-response situation, the
mobilization time was calculated at 3 hours. If a total time is less than
3 hcur,, due, to lot.. t-i-avel time to the shelter, a 3-hour minimum evacuation
is still assumed The variable which must be closely monitored by local
officials during actual hurricane Watch and Warning conditions is the
percentage of evacuees leaving prior to the evacuation order. A decrease
in this percentage will increase the mobilization time periods and, hence,
the minimum amount of time required to evacuate.

EARLY ARRIVAL OF HEAVY RAINS

Pre-landfall hazard times range from 4 to 11 hours before eye landfall,
when flooding or gale force winds might prevent evacuation from being
carried out. Depending primarily on the forward speed of the storm, pre-
storm rainfall may precede these pre-storm hazard periods. Instances of
rainfall occurring as early as 20 hours before eye landfall have been
recorded for several past hurricanes. Such rainfall would reduce roadway
carrying capacity because of limited driving visibility and wet pavement.
Recalculation of roadway capacities were made within this report to
compensate for this factor. This capacity reduction was assumed for the
entire length of the evacuation. Further adjustments, however, may be
necessary should rainfall arrive earlier than the 4-11 hours estimated.

ACTUAL VS. HYPOTHEriCAL HURRICANE

The formulation of the evacuation times in this report were based on
hypothetical hurricanes of probable characteristics. As mentioned
previously, it is improbable that an actual hurricane will fit each of the
characteristics used to develop a hypothetical storm. Two parameters which
could significantly change expected pre-eye landfall hazards times if they
are different are:

145

1) storm size (in statute miles of the radius of maximum winds); and

2) forward speed (in miles per hour).

As the actual hurricane's characteristics are identified by the NHC, the
pre-eye landfall hazard times should be adjusted if conditions warrant it.
In all cases, however, local officials can use the "worst case" probable
flooding maps as a basis on which to act.

In order that the procedures identified in this section work, constant
communication between decision-makers at all levels of government are
required. It is also essential that the data base developed by this study
be continually reviewed and updated by local disaster preparedness
officials and staffs as local conditions change and populations increase.

PUBLIC INFORMATION AND THE MEDIA

The success of any warning system is dependent on the ability to
communicate important information to the public in a timely manner. The
public media--television, radio, and newspaper--is the primary means of
reaching the public before, during, and after a storm. In order to
effectively carry out the procedures discussed in this report, a public
information mechanism needs to be developed to inform the public of
vulnerability zones, the threats to each zone, evacuation routes, and
actions needed to be taken during a storm event as well as general
hurricane preparedness measures and precautions.

As a result of this study, public information brochures will be developed
providing the detailed information required to complete a successful
evacuation. The brochure will consist primarily of an evacuation route map
and identify and mark vulnerability zones to enable residents to identify
their homes and monitor their vulnerability to various storm types.
Additional information regarding shelter availability, both in coastal and
inland counties, will be provided as well as general preparedness
information.

Additional public information materials will also be developed in the form of
television and radio scripts for use by commercial stations during hurricane
Watch and Warning periods. These scripts will be specific to the Watch and
Warning periods and will detail actions needing to be taken at those times.
Information provided in the brochure will be broadcast, either graphically
or verbally, at these times.

It is important that the public information brochures be updated regularly,
to compensate for changes in evacuation routes or zonal boundary changes.

146

APPENDICES

Page

A Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale . . . . . . . 150

Level of Threat - A . . . . . . . . . 151
Level of Threat - B . .. . . . . . . . 152

B Pre-Landfall Hazards Time Adjustment Rates 154

C Procedure foe Breaking Wave
Setup/Astronomical Tide Analysis . . . . . 156

D Shelter/Medical Facilities Location Maps . . . 159

E Transportation Analysis Carryover
Analysis Methodology . . . . . . . . 174

147

APPENDIX A

i@l

149

APPENDIX A

SAFFIR/SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE

1. Winds of 74 -95 miles per hour
Storm surge 4 - 5 feet above normal

2. Winds of 96 - 110 miles per hour
Storm surge 6 - 8 feet above normal

3. Winds of 111 130 miles per hour
Storm surge 9 12 feet above normal

4. Winds of 131 - 155 miles per hour
Storm surge 13 - 18 feet above normal

5. Winds greater than 155 miles per hour
Storm surge greater than 18 feet above normal

150

LEVEL OF THREAT -- A

Description of Forces

Storm surge 4 to 8 feet above MSL accompanied by winds of 74 to
110 mph.

Associated Hazards

Principal threat resulting from hurricane force winds and
accompanying tornado activity. Areas lying adjacent to the ocean
or tidal rivers subject to flooding from storm surge. Low-lying
causeways and roads (A1A) may be inundated several hours prior to
landfall, impeding evacuation of barrier islands.

Damage Potential

Majority of damage to result from wind, principally to exposed
mobile homes or poorly constructed homes. Considerable damage to
signs, street lights, and trees. Buildings lying east of AlA on
the barrier islands to suffer damage from rising water and wave
action.

Level of Evacuation

Brevard County

All residents of barrier islands (Evacuation Zones B1-B6) and
portions of Merritt Island (B7, B9, B10) and mainland (B13).
Evacuation of all mobile home residents within the county.

Volusia County

Residents of barrier islands (Evacuation Zones Vl, V3, V4, V6,
V7, V9, V10, V12, V13, V15, V32, V33, V35, V37, V38) and mainland
(V16, V18, V20, V23, V36, V27, V32, V34, V35, V37, V39, V44,
V46). Evacuation of all mobile home residents within county.

151

LEVEL OF THREAT -- B

Description of Forces

Storm surge ranging from 9 to 18+ feet above MSL, accompanied by
winds of 111 to over 155 mph.

Associated Hazards

Both flooding and winds will produce considerable threat to the
area, along with associated tornado activity. Storm surge will
cause major erosion of dune line, with the potential for
overtopping of barrier islands at several points in Brevard
County. Oceanfront and riverfront structures subject to
considerable damage. Roadways on the barrier islands and low-
lying causeways will be inundated three to seven hours before eye
landfall. Extensive flooding around Tomoka Basin and Strickland
Bay in Volusia County.

Damage Potential

Extensive damage to structures (roofs, windows, etc.) from high
winds. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Major damage or
destruction of oceanfront buildings from storm surge. Erosion of
beachfront.

Level of Evacuation

Brevard County

All residents living on barrier islands and Merritt Island
(Evacuation Zones B1-B1O) and mainland residents residing
adjacent to tidal rivers (B12-B26). Evacuation of all mobile
home residents within county.

Volusia County

All residents living on barrier islands (Evacuation Zones V1-V15
and V32-V38) and mainland residents living adjacent to tidal
rivers or bays (V16-V24 and V39-V47). Evacuation of all mobile
home residents within county.

152

APPENDIX B

1 153

PRE-LANDFALL HAZARDS TIME ADJUSTMENT RATES

Storm Size
(radius of maximum winds)

Hypothetical Arrival of Actual Radius Adjusted Arrival Time
Hurricane Gale Force Winds of Maximum of Gale Force Winds
Radius of Max. Winds Time before Winds before Eye Landfall
(statute miles) Eye Landfall (statute miles) (hours)
(hours)

10 4.25 (-.75)

20 5.75 (+.75) rn
15 5
30 7.25 (+2.25)
CO
40 8.75 (+2.75)

Forward Speed

Hypothetical Arrival of Gale Actual Forward Adjusted Arrival Time
Hurricane Force Winds Speed of Gale Force Winds
Forward Speed Time before (mph) before Eye Landfall
(mph) Eye Landfall (hours)
(hours)

6 12.0 (+7.0)
15 5 12 6.0 (+1.0)

18 4.0 (-1.0)

APPENDIX C

155

APPENDIX C

Procedure for Breaking Wave Setup/Astronomical Tide Analysis

Figure Cl is a hurricane surge hydrograph along the East Central Florida
coast. The figure shows a still water surge envelope from a SPLASH II
computer printout (heavy black line). The SPLASH II results do not
include the.astronomical tide level or breaking wave set. Also, it does
not include the tidal anomaly produced by a hurricane movement over a
body of water. However, because the anomaly is a constant..5 feet it is
not included.

Also shown on Figure C1 is the astronomical tide and wave setup being
superimposed on top of the storm surge envelope. The astronomical tide
level shown here is for mean high tide.

Figure C2 is a nomograph of the breaking wave setup versus the breaker
height of the significant wave published by the U.S. Army Coastal Engi-
neering Center in 1973. This figure allows for the computation of wave
setu@ @ased on the predicted tidal level (storm surge and astronomical
tide in an area. The formula used in computing the wave setup is as
follows: SW = 0.19 2.82 /Hb Hb
@ @'T

SW = Breaking wave setup
Hb = Breaker height of the significant wave
g= Gravitational acceleration
T= Wave period
The breaker height of the significant wave (Hb) can be determined from
the following:

Hb = 0.78 db

db = Depth of water at the breaker point of still
water level

Astronomical tide levels were determined for the SPLASH 11 computer
printouts. The range along the East Central Florida coast was approximately
4 feet.

156

APPENDIX C

STORM SURGE HYDROGRAPH

21-

20
STORM
SURGE
19
HIGH
18 TIDE
WAVE ...........
17 SETUP

is,

14 FIf

cn
12..

0
C4

LL.
lo-

0
9

i -A-
.j 8
Lu

6
4 dr

3 -

0
0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
TIME (HOURS) (eye landfall)
157

Figure C2
Breaking Wave Setup
VS.
Breaker Height of Significant Wave
2.8, -Nomograph

2.6

2Z
2.i- 177
2.0

1.8

M
IA

CO
lu
w 1.2

1.0-
,IN- Sw=O. 19 (1- 2. 82 dg@2) Hb
0.8

0.6

Breaki.nq Wave Setup 3w)
0J, Versus
Breaker Height of Significant Wave (HL;
31 41 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 _-TY_ 14 is 16 17 is 19 20
1 - . @l
Hb (FEET)

APPENDIX D

159

cs
C3 I c;

cm
C2,

9 jxVA, VL
i;,
AIA
40
5A

7 95

49 0
DAYTONA BEACH

3
9 6- AlA

92
31

2
95
5A

CANA

PONCE BE LEON INLET

40A

44 C AL SE
BLACH

442
AIA

VOLUSIR Co.
BREVARD CO.

406

TITUSVILLE

405

WUL

sc;

50 405

4022

I N;:D

NASA CAUSEWAY

ST. JOHNS RIVER

407

c;
ca
ca

528

524

01,

00 00 0
X-9
u6u u

ATLANTIC OCEAN

yq
NAI
524
?OCOA MERRITT
ISLAND

HUBERT
HUMPHREY
BRIDGE

ROCKLEDGE

i@s
Q-A
CID

rn
vo
U6

PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE
lk

SOUTH PATRICK SHORES

AIA
10a;

SATELLITE BEA

INDIAN BAR

AVRORA RD.
511
CANO

EAU GALLIE

INDIALANTIC

61
WIW HAVEN AVE. S4
7

MELBOURNE

MELBOURNE BEACH

CJI
cc
cc
507, PALM BAY
AIA
PALM BAY NO.,

509

A
MALABAR RD. 514

FLORIDA BEACH

AIA

BREVARD COUNTY.
INMAN RIVER COUNU

- - - - - - - - - - -

APPENDIX E

173

APPENDIX E

Transportation Analysis
Carryover Analysis Methodology

Calculation of traffic movements for the transportation analysis involved
applying vehicle production numbers-to a particular roadway in accordance
with a specified behavioral response curve. The hourly loading rates and
resulting queuing delays then determined the number of hours required to
clear a particular roadway link.

An example of this analysis is shown with Bennett Causeway and S.R. 520
causeway, for a behavioral survey response during a 1-2 storm situation.
The number of vehicles anticipated to utilize a particular roadway are
identified by evacuation zones and a percentage of usage for each zone
during each hourly interval calculated and totaled. The total number of
vehicles originating from these zones each hour is then compared in the
carryover analysis to the capacity of the roadway. If the number generated
exceeds the capacity then a queue is formed which must be absorbed by the
roadway during the next hour.

By using this method the time required to clear a roadway link may be
calculated. This method was also utilized in examining intersection
delays.

174

APPLNDIX E (cont.)
1-2 Stomi Situation
Beh. Survey Response

BENNETT CAUSEWAY

Capacity: 1470 VPHL (2L)

ZONE Bl ZONE B7 TOTAL

4,559 x (.04) + 8,089 x (.04) 506
(.06) (.06) 759
(.10) (.10) 1,265
(.24) (.24) 3,036
(.35) (.35) 4,427
(.12) (.12) 1,518
(.09) (.09) 1,139

CARRYOVER ANALYSIS

HOUR_ -.-QUEUE HOUR QUEUE

1 0 2 0
3 0 4 96
5 1,583 6 161
7 0 8 0

7.00 hours to clear link

SR 520 CAUSEWAY

Capacity: 504 VPHL (2L)

ZONE B2 ZONE B9 TOTAL

5,253 x (.04) + 5,830 x (.04) 444
(.06) (.06) 665
(.10) (.10) 1,108
(.24) (.24) 2,660
(.35) (.35) 3,879
(.12) (.12) 1,330
(.09) (.09) 997

CARRYOVER ANALYSIS

HOUR QUEUE HOUR QUEUE

1 0 2 0
3 100 4 1,752
5 4,632 6 4,954
7 4,943 8 3,935
9 2,927 10 11919
11 911 12

11.90 hours to clear link

175

-i --- -1 ------------I---------I------------ 1-1
.11121111milm I'
- 3 -6668 14101 8772