2004 HURRICANE ASSESSMENT CONCERNS and RECOMMENDATIONS
The following concerns and recommendations have been developed from all the data collection, interviews and surveys made for the 2004 hurricane assessments of Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne. They have been broken down into the following categories: Hurricane Evacuation Studies, Hurrevac, Evacuation Decision Making, SLOSH/Storm Surge, Behavioral/ Public Awareness, Transportation, Shelters, Business Impacts, HAZUS, Training, and High Water Marks.
HURRICANE EVACUATION RECOMMENDATIONS:
Hurricane Evacuation Study Concerns: FEMA & Corps do not get sufficient funds to maintain and update Hurricane Evacuation Studies (HES) in 22 coastal states and island territories. Nor does the program have adequate funds to develop post storm recommendations after significant hurricane events. Some study areas have not been updated in many years, resulting in clearance times that do not represent current growing coastal populations. There is a high turnover rate in the State and County Emergency Management Agencies (EMA) resulting in new personnel unfamiliar with HES products. The 2004 post storm assessment revealed that many of the decision making officials impacted by hurricanes were using HES studies based on 1990 census data.
Hurricane Evacuation Study Recommendations:
1. FEMA/USACE/States need to secure additional funding to design a timely and efficient system to update HES studies and evacuation clearance times for conditions that exist before each hurricane season.
2. FEMA/USACE/States need to conduct HES training before each season to insure EMA’s are aware of current HES products and understands their evacuation zones and clearance times.
3. HES studies need to be expanded to include data for nearby inland counties to better understand regional evacuation impacts and inland hurricane hazard vulnerability.
4. Evacuation orders issued by military bases were not always coordinated with local jurisdictions. Additional coordination is needed to insure Military base actions are accounted for in evacuation clearance time computations. Evacuation clearance times in HES need to be adjusted to include military base impacts upon roadway networks.
HURREVAC – Decision Assistance Tool
Hurrevac Concerns: The low use of evacuation zones by Emergency Management officials implies a miss-understanding of how evacuation clearance times are to be used in Hurrevac. There are many registered and unregistered Hurrevac users running older versions of Hurrevac. Unregistered users do not get notices of program updates that provide new features which can greatly benefit EMA’s when making a decision to evacuate. The FEMA National Hurricane Program does not currently have the capability to properly market and train user on Hurrevac and our evacuation study procedures.
Hurrevac Recommendations:
1. Although the latest version of Hurrevac 4.0.4 has features to alert users if they are using an old version, we should still make every effort to insure older versions are updated.
2. Increase public awareness, marketing, and training efforts to insure that EMA’s understand the usefulness of HURREVAC. Create a brochure/newsletter for Hurrevac users showing how to get it; what it does, component descriptions, how to get training etc. Make the brochure available on web sites. Design an effective Hurrevac training mechanism to adequately train users, improve their understanding of Hurrevac and promote optimum evacuation decisions.
3. Develop a means to determine actual numbers of users and Insure adequate server space so data download times don't become a problem.
4. Investigate possibility of furnishing users the default plug-in Evac/Surge data specific to the user's state without them having to download it separately and loading on their computer.
5. Market Hurrevac to the inland communities and show them how it can benefit them.
6. Provide a tool to allow user to export tables to spreadsheets or database files.
EVACUATION DECISION MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS
Evacuation Decision Making Concerns: Some Counties are not issuing evacuation orders that match the evacuation zones in the HES studies. Nomenclature used to describe evacuation zones is not consistent from county to county. It was found that many citizens never heard specific evacuation warning orders which may have contributed to lower participation rates. Some EMA's may have focused too much on the forecast track and not adequately considered the error cone or Hurricane watches and warnings. Behavioral analyses reveal that citizens indicated watches and warnings are a major factor in their decision to evacuate. However, nearly half of the respondents cannot define what NOAA Hurricane Watches and Warnings mean. Behavioral analyses indicate that evacuation participation rates are higher in communities that issue “Mandatory” warning orders.
Evacuation Decision Making Recommendations:
1. Evaluate and improve evacuation order communication, capability and techniques, between EMA and the community to provide the best public response. Develop evacuation order protocols, best practice procedures, and analysis capabilities for local and state decision making officials.
2. Work with NOAA to increase watch and warning public awareness.
3. Review the effectiveness of mandatory vs. voluntary evacuation orders and change terminology based on findings.
4. Improve evacuation coordination between State EMA’s and other key agencies responsible for coordinating evacuations.
5. Increase awareness of the Hurricane Liaison Team (HLT) and its value to State/local EMAs. Clearly define the HLT’s national roles and protocols.
6. Improve traffic information and procedures. Traffic delays are a serious problem, especially for those who evacuate in a timely manner. Contra-flow and other initiatives are underway in many areas, but the public is not sufficiently aware of them.
7. Provide assistance to local governments in the form of best practices guides for dissemination of evacuation notices and materials for communicating the locations needing to evacuate; provide multimedia materials to help people in vulnerable areas appreciate the danger of being at home during a hurricane.
SLOSH/Storm Surge Concerns: Storm surge has the highest potential to cause fatalities for people along the coast. According to the behavioral analyses findings, a majority of citizens in coastal states have never experienced a significant storm surge event and are not aware of their vulnerability. A separate concern is that FEMA, USACE and NOAA do not have the capability to timely update storm surge/SLOSH basins that have been impacted by significant hurricane events. The HES program can only update 2 to 3 storm surge basins per year. Storm Surge basins are the foundation used to create Evacuation Clearance Times.
SLOSH/Storm Surge Recommendations:
1. Increase awareness about hurricane threats from storm surge by developing a comprehensive campaign to impress on the public and local decision-makers the hazards associated with storm surge inundation.
2. FEMA/USACE/NOAA need to evaluate various storm surge models being utilized by EMA’s to make evacuation decisions. The goal of this recommendation is to keep storm surge mapping current, since it is the foundation upon which evacuation clearance times are created.
3. FEMA/USACE/NOAA should determine the best future course of action to quickly update a storm surge basin that has been significantly altered by a storm.
4. Generate new SLOSH Maximum Envelopes of Water (MEOWs) and Maximum of the Maximums (MOMs) for use in determining changes to existing hurricane evacuation zones for each revised SLOSH basin (when completed).
5. Revise the surge mapping based on new MEOWs and MOMs for each area having significant changes to surge heights.
Behavioral/Public Awareness Concerns: The most striking conclusions from the behavioral surveys are: too few people realize that they are being told to evacuate; too many people believe they are safer than they actually are; and too many people place undue confidence in the forecast track of the storm. Evacuation decisions are driven mostly by subjective risk assessments rather than constraints. Many people don’t understand that evacuation notices apply to them, and those misconceptions lead people to make untimely/incorrect evacuation decisions. Many people believe the storm will miss their location, sometimes placing too much faith in the forecast track of the storm, and sometimes those misconceptions are reinforced by similar misconceptions by emergency management officials. In some cases, 40% of the respondents said they have never spent anything to make their homes safer in hurricanes, and that was the case even in category 1 evacuation zones. Evacuation participation rates were low for Charley, Frances, and Jeanne. Finally, Based on behavioral studies the evacuation participation rates in surge vulnerable areas in some regions was very low. Additional training and assistance with public awareness were the most requested items. Several jurisdictions indicated that language barriers (Spanish) were a problem during the evacuation process.
Behavioral/Public Awareness Recommendations:
1. Review, consolidate and create new Federal agency brochures and PDF web based files that educate the public on how to assess hurricane hazard vulnerability.
2. Develop community-centered campaigns on hurricane vulnerability. Prepare multi-media material such as television spots or a film intended to educate the public about the reasons for evacuating and the dangers of failing to do so. The material would be made available for long-term public education but also suitable for shorter segments that could be used when a storm is actually threatening a community, mainly for use by local television
3. Expand the hurricane evacuation studies to include regionally specific hurricane public awareness information.
4. Future HES studies should provide locals with training and development of public awareness materials specific to their locations.
5. A best-practices guide to demonstrate ways that some communities have successfully converted their HES products into public information products should be developed, including ways the communities have funded those products. The HES program should sponsor a study describing the techniques employed by communities to disseminate evacuation notices and sponsor a best-practices guide showing methods that have been most effective.
6. Given the large number of people failing to evacuate from vulnerable areas, it would be prudent for the HES program to provide local governments with technical assistance to educate the public about how to make their homes safer in a hurricane, not just more damage resistant.
7. Post-storm surveys should be conducted sooner following events to ensure the collection of perishable behavioral data. Complete these behavioral studies sooner. Research has shown that memories get lost or modified quickly. To the extent possible, budgetary and other post storm constraints should be modified to enable researchers to begin as soon as possible after a hurricane threat or impact.
8. Promote mitigation best practices and find new ways to encourage sheltering in place outside storm surge zones.
9. Embrace new technologies that would provide more accurate behavioral data at less cost.
Transportation Concerns: Real time Intelligent Traffic System (ITS) information is inconsistent from state to state or does not exist in some coastal jurisdictions. This information is critical for EMA’s and DOT officials to manage large scale evacuations.
Transportation Recommendations:
1. FEMA/USACE/FHWA must evaluate support for real time evacuation traffic systems and technology, including ETIS. Determine state and local ITS needs, current traffic management capabilities, and best practices.
2. Establish an MOU that clearly defines the role and responsibility of the Evacuation Liaison Team and its relationship with states agencies.
3. Develop a centralized, nationwide network of real-time traffic counters, which can be accessed and used by all Federal, State and local officials during emergencies. Place real-time traffic counters in rural and urbanized jurisdictions that record and transmit average hourly speeds.
4. Facilitate a more proactive application of traffic management, host sheltering and public information procedures that will enhance the overall success of any evacuation effort.
5. Once the behavioral results are finalized, especially destination and participation rates, all efforts should be undertaken to ensure that they are validated and input into traffic management modeling.
6. Develop strategies for the Evacuation Liaison Team (ELT) to collect better consistent information regarding evacuation decisions from State and local governments. Develop a method for collecting these local evacuation decisions and other related variables and archiving them for future reference.
7. Evaluate procedures to inform evacuees on the roadway network/in-route of traffic problems and emergency information.
8. FEMA must work with USDOT to create transportation reentry protocol templates and plans for local governments.
Shelter Concerns: Nearly all of the jurisdictions interviewed stated that they were experiencing shelter deficits. Several communities also warned that there were not adequate amounts of trained management staff to properly run the current shelters. None of the NHP's shelter database tools seemed to be utilized at the local level and a better system to determine shelter need is imperative. A request for planning assistance concerning long term/post storm sheltering was made by several counties.
Shelter Recommendations:
1. Complete the development of a national shelter database and evaluation system and include a shelter management module to allow users to select available shelters and keep track of their capacities and needs to improve real-time shelter management during evacuations and share shelter data between states.
2. Review public shelter usage over the past 10 years to better document the most probable shelter usage rates and the circumstances that lead to those rates being exceeded.
3. Improve communications between shelters and county EMA’s to ensure rapid exchange of information after the storm has passed.
4. To alleviate deficits in shelter staff, train and utilize municipal, county and state employees in shelter operations.
5. Insure sufficient shelter capacity is available to avoid problems due to overcrowding.
6. Plan for long term sheltering and assistance in case extended stays become necessary due to storm damage and unsafe conditions.
7. Federal and state programs should include assistance in evaluating shelters for resistance to wind, debris and water penetration and provide recommendations for retrofits and structural improvements to shelters to insure occupants are adequately protected.
8. Insure transportation is provided for those lacking the means to reach shelters.
9. Define “Refuge of Last Resort” and develop procedures and protocols for local EMA’s in case they are threatened by rapidly intensifying storms close to shore.
10. Assist counties to insure that public knows where shelters are located.
11. Work with shelter staff to help them obtain information on evacuees in the shelter to determine where they come from and why they came to that shelter.
BUSINESS IMPACTS
Business Impact Concerns: Many businesses didn’t think damages could be as bad as they were and indicated their hurricane emergency plans were inadequate. Getting back in operation was more difficult than expected and the loss of communication, phone and cable lines, and computer connectivity was a major setback. It was also found that many businesses do not maintain a continuing operations plan after a disaster strikes.
Business Impact Recommendations:
1. Develop and deliver mitigation programs, construction guidelines and training for the business community.
2. Develop and deliver hurricane preparedness programs and training for the business community.
3. Provide guidance and assistance to the business community in the development of Business Continuity Plans.
4. Back-up plans for communication and internet access should be developed for critical business entities.
5. Develop and conduct severe weather and disaster preparedness materials and training for business leaders and employees and families.
6. Businesses should develop short and long-range recovery plans and be better educated on the specifics of the FEMA assistance programs.
7. Better and stronger building codes should be adopted for structures within 100 miles of the coast.
HAZUS Concerns: At the State and county level, emphasis needs to be given to developing a core capability in the use of HAZUS-MH for mitigation, response and recovery planning. State users identified five interrelated objectives to improve HAZUS use: 1) to identify and prioritize HAZUS-MH analysis to support hurricane impact assessment and response; 2) to identify steps to incorporate HAZUS-MH into CEMP functional planning at the State and local level; 3) to incorporate HAZUS-MH operations and analysis into hurricane response training and exercises; 4) to develop a capability (State and local) to use HAZUS-MH to assess potential impacts of hurricanes in the 2005 hurricane season, including standardization of HAZUS-MH reports; and 5) to coordinate with the Data Acquisition and Stewardship Work Group to identify priorities for data collection.
HAZUS Recommendations:
1. Enhance HAZUS-MH Training and Capability Development. This capability should include GIS expertise and emergency management/mitigation planners.
2. Provide guidance to Florida counties that describes the potential use of HAZUS-MH and TAOS analysis and outputs.
3. Prepare a work plan and implementation strategy to identify and prioritize the acquisition of datasets.
4. Priority should be given to post-disaster studies that analyze and validate performance of essential facilities with priority given to shelters and hospitals.
5. The post-disaster information needs of three key local officials - Housing, Building, and Fire - should be considered when customizing HAZUS-MH post-disaster applications.
6. HAZUS-MH estimates of indirect losses should be validated and shared with state and local officials.
Training Concerns: The FEMA/USACE National Hurricane Program does not have the programmatic or financial means to effectively train the EMA community on evacuation decision making for Hurricane Threats. The NHP's training capability must be improved and enhanced to meet the demand of the counties and states. The NHP's products and tools are only as good as the training that supplements them. The recommendations below resulted from concerns that: 1. It appeared that some EMA's concentrated on the track and not the error cone. 2. In some areas under evacuations seem to have taken place. 3. There is a high turn-over of EMA staff at the state and county level. 4. FEMA/USACE HES tools are not being utilized appropriately. 5. Training opportunities are not easily accessible. 6. Various training products are becoming out dated.
Training Recommendations:
1. Create an accredited online suite of independent training products to educate the EM community on all HES products.
2. Develop a Hurrevac on-line independent study course to meet EMI training standards that would keep up with trainees taking the course.
3. Ask the States to notify FEMA and the Corps of all new EM directors and provide a training session for them to assure they are familiar with the Hurricane Evacuation Program and the use of Hurrevac.
4. Create a cadre of Hurrevac trainers and develop a state train the trainer program and insure training is provided to all users.
5. Update evacuation decision making products such as IS 324, community hurricane preparedness, and create a package for inland county use of hurricane products.
6. Create new independent study course to address storm surge impacts and assessing vulnerability.
7. All online training products should meet FEMA/DHS Emergency Management Institute (EMI) training standards and be incorporated into EMA certification curriculum where appropriate.
High Water Mark Concerns: There maybe deficiencies on the existing Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
High Water Mark Recommendations:
1. Compare the Hurricane Coastal High Water Marks (CHWMs) to the flood elevation data on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps to determine where flood hazard data was accurate or where new detailed studies should be performed.
2. An evaluation is needed of the recurrence intervals of the surge conditions across the area.
3. Compare the CHWMs and Riverine High Water Marks (RHWMs) from other significant flood events. This will identify areas of repetitive flooding that can assist FEMA in determining locations that would make good flood mitigation projects.
4. Complete detailed-engineering analyses to determine new flood elevations in the areas where deficiencies have been identified on the existing FEMA maps, or in areas where property loss occurred where no previous studies have been prepared.
5. Use CHWMs and RHWMs to identify areas of concern for future mitigation projects.
6. Use CHWMs and RHWMs to evaluate the success of completed mitigation projects. Documentation of the "damages avoided" can be used as mitigation success stories.
7. Use CHWMs and RHWMs to create flood recovery inundation mapping. The inundation maps can assist in determining the accuracy of existing FEMA flood maps and provided to community officials to assist in disaster recovery.