THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, December 21, 1995 TAG: 9512210353
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY STEVE STONE, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 121 lines
For tens of thousands of Virginia coastal residents, seeking safe haven in advance of a hurricane may no longer be a matter of simply getting to a nearby shelter.
Many will be directed far inland - at least 50 miles or more. It's a move planners feel they have to make, but one they openly admit creates an unparalleled logistical challenge of moving so many people to safe ground in a short time.
Exactly where evacuees would be sent is being worked out, but that problem is trivial compared to another: Officials say people would have to begin getting out as much as 40 hours before a storm is expected to hit.
Despite the acknowledged problems, planners say the changes must be made.
``When you've got a couple of studies that prove your shelters are in a vulnerable area, you really don't have much choice but to look at something of this nature,'' said Jim Talbot, Norfolk's deputy coordinator of emergency services.
The problem is the topography of the region. Most of Hampton Roads sits only a few feet above sea level. But no major hurricanes have hit the area in more than 60 years, so there is little historical reference to know the true impact of a major storm in an area that has grown phenomenally.
A complicated computer analysis of the region a few years ago showed that far more of the coastal area is susceptible to a hurricane's impact than was thought.
Emergency planners throughout the area realized immediately that they had a major problem: most traditional shelter locations, as well as the homes and communities they are meant to serve, are in danger zones.
Storm surge - high waters with pounding waves in advance of a hurricane - as well as just rising water, could easily flood many long-designated shelters. Further complicating matters, a finding that some shelters - most often school buildings - could be vulnerable to wind damage.
For instance, Virginia Beach once included the Pavilion among its list of shelters. ``It would be an ideal place,'' said Mark Marchbank, the head of emergency services in Virginia Beach. ``But because it's in the flood plain, we closed it.''
The American Red Cross - which provides support services for shelters - read the same studies and drew the same conclusions, warning that it would be reluctant to put volunteers in harm's way.
Since then, cities have revamped shelter lists and have even taken to designating shelters on a case-by-case basis, considering a storm's potential strength and course before deciding what shelters to use.
All the while, they have continued to seek safer solutions. In November, state, local and Red Cross officials met in Richmond and adopted the inland sheltering strategy.
``We don't want another McClellanville (S.C.) on our hands,'' said Talbot, referring to an incident in 1989 when Hurricane Hugo pounded the South Carolina coast.
A high school in the fishing community north of Charleston was being used as a shelter for about 200 people. But it nearly became a death trap as 6 feet of water surged into the building. People stood on seats and the gymnasium stage and held children aloft.
``They came close to having a major disaster there,'' Talbot said. ``Thankfully, there were no deaths. But we don't want that to occur here.''
Details of Virginia's new coastal sheltering plan are being worked out, Talbot said. But the big picture is becoming clear.
``To be safe, they are going to have to move to the western part of the state,'' Marchbank said. ``But we have such a tremendous evacuation problem. We have to look at much earlier evacuation times to get people out of here.''
And even then, he knows thousands will not heed the early warnings until it's too late to make a distant inland move.
``We're still going to have a lot of people in Tidewater in a major storm,'' Marchbank said. ``And we may open facilities, but they may not be called `shelters.' People will have to understand that they are not necessarily the safest place, but they are probably a safer place than where they were.''
Luckily, ``I have 40-plus facilities that can be identified outside the flood plain,'' Marchbank said. ``Norfolk could have most of their facilities surrounded by water.''
Talbot estimated that more than half the population of Norfolk - more than 100,000 people - would be urged to move inland under the new plan in face of such a storm as Hurricane Felix this year. That storm veered away from the coast.
Add to that the evacuees from Virginia Beach and neighboring cities and as many as a quarter million people might be on the move in advance of a storm.
That in mind, there are several stumbling blocks to overcome:
Time - To work, the plan would have to be implemented 35 to 40 hours before a hurricane might make landfall, Talbot said.
The National Hurricane Center seldom issues a hurricane warning more than 24 hours in advance of landfall, however. And given the potential for a storm to strengthen before landfall, Talbot said officials will treat each storm as if it was one category stronger on the Saffir-Simpson scale.
Transportation - Local officials have long been concerned about trying to move huge numbers of residents and visitors out of the region over a highway system with many tunnel and bridge bottlenecks. The inland plan compounds the problem.
Confusion - Where to go? Evacuees must be directed into unfamiliar communities west of Williamsburg and Suffolk and officials must make certain they are spread evenly among shelter locations. State police and the Virginia Department of Transportation would have to direct evacuees. ``We will have to rely on the media very heavily,'' to alert people about where to go, Talbot said.
One option that is again being looked at is reversing lanes on interstate highways.
Local planners have long wanted the Virginia Department of Transportation to make all lanes of I-64 - including the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel - westbound during an evacuation. ``They are well aware of this new dilemma with inland sheltering,'' Talbot said.
But a Transportation Department official said Wednesday that his agency, for now, still opposes reversing the interstate.
``We've always been committed to considering the reversal of I-64,'' said Stephany Hanshaw, a freeway traffic operations engineer. ``But we have some real concerns with reversing that amount of interstate, which is essentially 80 miles.''
Hanshaw cited safety concerns as well as the short lead time available to make a reversal as well as the number of personnel required to implement it.
``We still hold the same position we've always had,'' Hanshaw said. ``But we will be meeting in the future to discuss the impact'' of a move to inland sheltering. by CNB