U.S. Department of Transportation

in cooperation with the

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

June 1, 2006
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 

Report to Congress on Catastrophic

Hurricane Evacuation Plan

Evaluation

U.S. Department of Transportation 

in cooperation with the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

June 1, 2006
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ii 

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... V 

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... V 

LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................VI 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................ES-1 

Methodology........................................................................................................................................... ES-2 

Summary of Major Findings................................................................................................................... ES-2 

Decision Making and Management.................................................................................................. ES-3 

Planning............................................................................................................................................ ES-3 

Public Communication and Preparedness ........................................................................................ ES-5 

Evacuation of People with Special Needs ........................................................................................ES-6 

Evacuation Operations ..................................................................................................................... ES-7 

Sheltering.......................................................................................................................................... ES-8 

Training and Exercises ..................................................................................................................... ES-9 

Costs to Develop and Update Plans ........................................................................................................ ES-9 

Activities to Prepare for the 2006 Hurricane Season............................................................................ES-10 

Recommendations................................................................................................................................. ES-10 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1-1 

Congressional Requirements for the U.S. DOT Study ..............................................................................1-1 

Coordination with DHS Study on the Status of Catastrophic Planning.....................................................1-2 

Background................................................................................................................................................1-2 

Study Scope and Methods..........................................................................................................................1-4 

CHAPTER 2: FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND TRANSPORTATION ROLES IN 

EVACUATIONS ...............................................................................................................................2-1 

Federal, State, and Local Roles in Evacuations .........................................................................................2-1 

National Policy Guidance ................................................................................................................2-3 

Evacuation Planning and Implementation Guidance .......................................................................2-5 

Other Federal Initiatives to Assist State and Local Government Evacuations.................................2-7 

State and Local Roles in Evacuations ............................................................................................2-10 

NGO Roles in Evacuations ............................................................................................................2-12 

Federal Roles in Evacuations .........................................................................................................2-13 

U.S. DOT Roles, Programs, and Initiatives to Support Evacuations.......................................................2-15 

U.S. DOT Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and Preparations 

for 2006 Hurricane Season..........................................................................................................2-16 

Future Evacuation Roles for the U.S. DOT ...................................................................................2-19

CHAPTER 3: EVACUATION PLAN ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ......................................3-1 

Scope of the Plan Evaluation .....................................................................................................................3-2 

Coordination with DHS Study .........................................................................................................3-3 

Methodology ....................................................................................................................................3-3 

Identify Key Elements of Evacuation Planning and Implementation ..............................................3-4 

Review Current Evacuation Practices..............................................................................................3-4 

Develop Plan Evaluation Criteria.....................................................................................................3-5 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 iii 

Conduct Site Visits..............................................................................................................................3-9 

Identify Lessons Learned and Best Practices ....................................................................................3-10 

CHAPTER 4: STATE AND LOCAL EVACUATION PLAN ASSESSMENT .................................4-1 

Decision Making and Management ...........................................................................................................4-5 

Current Guidelines and Practices ........................................................................................................4-6 

Assessment of Current Plans...............................................................................................................4-6 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations.........................................................................................4-9 

Best Practices ......................................................................................................................................4-9 

Planning .....................................................................................................................................................4-9 

Current Guidelines and Practices ......................................................................................................4-10 

Operational Modeling Tools.......................................................................................................4-11 

Analytical Modeling Tools .........................................................................................................4-11 

Assessment of Current Plans.............................................................................................................4-12 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations.......................................................................................4-15 

Best Practices ....................................................................................................................................4-16 

Public Communication and Preparedness................................................................................................4-16 

Current Guidelines and Practices ......................................................................................................4-17 

Assessment of Current Plans.............................................................................................................4-19 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations.......................................................................................4-21 

Best Practices ....................................................................................................................................4-22 

Evacuation of People with Special Needs................................................................................................4-23 

Current Guidelines and Practices ......................................................................................................4-23 

Assessment of Current Plans.............................................................................................................4-24 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations.......................................................................................4-27 

Operations................................................................................................................................................4-27 

Current Guidelines and Practices ......................................................................................................4-28 

Assessment of Current Plans.............................................................................................................4-28 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations.......................................................................................4-32 

Best Practices ....................................................................................................................................4-33 

Sheltering .................................................................................................................................................4-34 

Current Guidelines and Practices ......................................................................................................4-34 

Assessment of Current Plans.............................................................................................................4-34 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations.......................................................................................4-38 

Best Practices ....................................................................................................................................4-39 

Mass Evacuation Training and Exercises ................................................................................................4-40 

Current Guidelines and Practices ......................................................................................................4-41 

Assessment of Current Plans.............................................................................................................4-42 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations.......................................................................................4-44 

Best Practices ....................................................................................................................................4-45 

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................5-1 

Specific Findings and Recommendations for Key Elements of Evacuation Planning and Operations .....5-1 

Decision Making and Management ...........................................................................................................5-2 

Findings...............................................................................................................................................5-2 

Recommendations and Current Actions..............................................................................................5-2 

Planning .....................................................................................................................................................5-3 

Findings...............................................................................................................................................5-3 

Recommendations and Current Actions..............................................................................................5-4 

Public Communication and Preparedness..................................................................................................5-4 

Findings...............................................................................................................................................5-4 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 iv 

Recommendations and Current Actions..............................................................................................5-5 

Evacuation of People with Special Needs..................................................................................................5-5 

Findings...............................................................................................................................................5-5 

Recommendations and Current Actions..............................................................................................5-5 

Evacuation Operations for All Modes of Transportation...........................................................................5-6 

Findings...............................................................................................................................................5-6 

Recommendations and Current Actions..............................................................................................5-6 

Evacuation-Related Sheltering Considerations..........................................................................................5-7 

Findings...............................................................................................................................................5-7 

Recommendations and Current Actions..............................................................................................5-7 

Training and Exercises...............................................................................................................................5-8 

Findings...............................................................................................................................................5-8 

Recommendations and Current Actions..............................................................................................5-8 

Summary Comments..................................................................................................................................5-8 

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Secretary of Transportation’s Letter to the Governors Requesting Copies of State and 

Local Evacuation Planning Documents..............................................................................................A-1

Appendix B: State, Parish, and County Agency Plans Included in the Assessments............................... B-1

Appendix C: Evaluation Methodology and Evaluation Criteria ...............................................................C-1

Appendix D: Agencies and Participants in State and Local Meetings......................................................D-1

Appendix E: Best Practices....................................................................................................................... E-1

Appendix F: Hurricane Evacuation Models and Tools............................................................................. F-1

Appendix G: Texas Executive Order - RP57............................................................................................G-1

Appendix H: Coordination and Command for Mass Evacuations............................................................H-1

Appendix I: U.S. DOT Evacuation-Related Responsibilities.................................................................... I-1

ENDNOTES .........................................................................................................................ENDNOTES-1
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 v 

List of Tables 

Table ES-1: Status of Evacuation Plans in the Gulf Coast Region......................................................... ES-3

Table 2-1: Emergency Support Functions .................................................................................................2-4

Table 3-1: General Evaluation Questions ..................................................................................................3-6

Table 3-2: Evaluation Ratings ...................................................................................................................3-9

Table 4-1: Questions and Assessment Results...........................................................................................4-3

Table 4-2: Decision Making and Management Questions and Assessment Results..................................4-6

Table 4-3: Planning Questions and Assessment Results..........................................................................4-12

Table 4-4: Public Communications and Preparedness Criteria and Assessment Results ........................4-17

Table 4-5: Evacuation of People with Special Needs Questions and Assessment Results......................4-24

Table 4-6: Operations Questions and Assessment Results ......................................................................4-29

Table 4-7: Sheltering Questions and Assessment Results .......................................................................4-35

Table 4-8: Training and Exercises Questions and Assessment Ratings...................................................4-42

List of Figures 

Figure 3-1: Congressional Criteria.............................................................................................................3-1 

Figure 3-2: States Included in Assessment ................................................................................................3-2

Figure 3-3: DOT Study Process.................................................................................................................3-3 

Figure 3-4: Key Elements ..........................................................................................................................3-4 

Figure 3-5: Study Methodology for Assessment of Individual Plans ........................................................3-8 

Figure 4-1: Status of Evacuation Plans in the Gulf Coast Region .............................................................4-2

Figure 4-2: Evacuation Plans Assessment Ratings ....................................................................................4-5 

Figure 4-3: Decision Making and Management Assessment Ratings........................................................4-7 

Figure 4-4: Planning Assessment Ratings ...............................................................................................4-13 

Figure 4-5: Public Communications and Preparedness Assessment Ratings ..........................................4-18 

Figure 4-6: Evacuation of People with Special Needs Assessment Ratings............................................4-25 

Figure 4-7: Operations Assessment Ratings ............................................................................................4-29 

Figure 4-8: Sheltering Assessment Ratings .............................................................................................4-35 

Figure 4-9: Training and Exercises Assessment Ratings.........................................................................4-42 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 vi 

List of Acronyms 

A 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials 

AAR Association of American Railroads 

ABA American Bus Association 

ADPS Alabama Department of Public Safety 

AEMA Alabama Emergency Management Agency 

ALDOT Alabama’s Department of Transportation 

APTA American Public Transportation Association 

ARC American Red Cross 

ATA American Trucking Associations 

ATIS Advanced Traveler Information Systems 

B 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 

C 

CATS Consequence Assessment Tool Set 

CBRNE Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or Explosive 

CEMP Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan 

CEO Chief Executive Officer 

CERT Community Emergency Response Team 

CMC Crisis Management Center 

CTGP Competitive Training Grant Program 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 vii 

D 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DMS Dynamic Message Sign 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOH Department of Health

DSCA Defense Support of Civil Authorities 

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

E 

EC Emergency Coordinators 

ELT Evacuation Liaison Team 

EMAC Emergency Management Assistance Compact 

EMAP Emergency Management Accreditation Program 

EMPG Emergency Management Performance Grant 

EOC Emergency Operations Center 

EOP Emergency Operations Plan 

EPI Emergency Public Information 

ERC Emergency Response Center 

ESARVHP Emergency System for Advanced Registration of Volunteer Health 

Professionals 

ESF Emergency Support Functions 

ETC Emergency Transportation Center 

ETIS Evacuation Traffic Information System

ETO Emergency Transportation Operations 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 viii

F 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCO Federal Coordinating Officer 

FDEM Florida Division of Emergency Management 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FRC Federal Resource Coordinator 

FRP Federal Response Plan 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

G 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GIS Geographic Information System 

H 

HAZUS-MH Hazards US Multi-Hazards

HCM Highway Capacity Manual 

HES Hurricane Evacuation Studies 

HELP Hierarchical Evacuation Level Planning 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

HSC Homeland Security Council 

HSEEP Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ix 

HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program 

HSOC Homeland Security Operations Center 

HSPD Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive 

HSPD 5 Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive – Domestic Incident 

Management 

HSPD 8 Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive – National 

Preparedness 

HSAS Homeland Security Advisory System 

HSPTAP Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance Program 

HURREVAC Hurricane Evacuation Model 

I 

IAEM International Association of Emergency Managers 

ICC Interstate Commerce Commission 

ICM Intelligence Consequence Management 

ICP Incident Command Post 

ICS Incident Command Structure 

IIMG Interagency Incident Management Group 

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems 

J 

JACE Joint Assessment of Catastrophic Events 

JFO Joint Field Office 

JPO Joint Program Office 

K 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 x 

L 

LPN Licensed Practical Nurse 

M 

MARAD U.S. Maritime Administration 

MASSVAC Mass Evacuation Model 

MEMA Mississippi Emergency Management Agency 

MDOH Mississippi Department of Health 

MDOT Mississippi Department of Transportation 

MREs Meals Ready-To-Eat 

MDSS Maintenance Decision Support System 

MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

MCC Multi-agency Coordination Center 

N 

NCD National Council on Disabilities 

NDMS National Disaster Medical System 

NEMA National Emergency Management Association 

NETVAC Network Emergency Evacuation Model 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NFPA 1600 National Fire Protection Association 1600 – Standard on 

Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs 

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations 

NHC National Hurricane Center 

NIMS National Incident Management System 

NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 xi 

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRCC National Response Coordination Center 

NRP National Response Plan 

NWS National Weather Service 

NVOAD National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster 

O 

OEM Office of Emergency Management 

OEMS Office of Emergency Services

OREMS Oak Ridge Evacuation Modeling System 

OST Office of the Secretary 

OST/S-60 Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response 

P 

PFO Principal Federal Officer 

POC Point of Contact 

R 

RETCO Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinator 

RETREP Regional Emergency Transportation Representative 

RN Registered Nurse 

ROC Regional Operations Center 

RRCC Regional Response Coordination Center 

RRF Ready Reserve Force 

RRT Regional Response Team 

RUCS Regional Unified Command Structure
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 xii 

S 

S-60 Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users 

SCO State Coordinating Officer 

SEOC State Emergency Operations Center 

SERT State Emergency Response Team 

SFLEO Senior Federal Law Enforcement Official 

SFO Senior Federal Official 

SLG 101 State and Local Guide 101 

SLOSH Model Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes Model 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

STB Surface Transportation Board

T 

TCL Target Capabilities List 

TMC Transportation Management Centers 

TRAC Terrebonne Parish Readiness and Assistance Coalition 

TRB Transportation Research Board 

TTF Texas Task Force 

U 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

UNC-CH University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 xiii

USNORTHCOM U.S. Northern Command 

USTRANSCOM U.S. Transportation Command 

UTL Universal Task List 

V 

VA Department of Veteran Affairs 

VMS Variable Message Sign 

W 

X 

Y 

Z 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-1 

Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation

Plan Evaluation

A catastrophic incident is defined as “Any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, 

that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting 

the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, and/or government 

functions. A catastrophic event could result in sustained national impacts over a prolonged 

period of time; almost immediately exceeds resources normally available to State, local, tribal, 

and private-sector authorities in the impacted area; and significantly interrupts governmental 

operations and emergency services to such an extent that national security could be threatened. 

All catastrophic events are Incidents of National Significance.”

National Response Plan1

Executive Summary 

The U.S. Congress requested the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), in cooperation with 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to “review and assess Federal and State 

evacuation plans (including the costs of the plans) for catastrophic hurricanes and other 

catastrophic events impacting the Gulf Coast region and report its findings and recommendations 

to Congress.” In Section 10204 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 

(P.L. 109-59) and Section 187 of the FY 2006 

Department of Transportation Appropriations Act 

(P.L. 109-115), Congress specified that this 

assessment should include: (1) all safe and practical 

modes of transportation available for evacuations; 

(2) the extent to which evacuation plans are 

coordinated with neighboring States and adjoining 

jurisdictions; (3) methods of communicating 

evacuation plans and preparing citizens in advance 

of evacuations; (4) methods of coordinating 

communication with evacuees during plan 

execution; (5) the availability of food, water, 

restrooms, fueling stations, and shelter opportunities along the evacuation routes; (6) the time 

required to evacuate under the plan; and (7) the physical and mental strains associated with the 

evacuation. The assessment also includes issues and lessons learned from evacuations associated 

with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other recent hurricanes. 

This U.S. DOT study of evacuation plans for the Gulf Coast region has been closely coordinated 

with a DHS study of emergency operations plans in States, territories, and 75 major urban areas 

“The Secretary [of Transportation] and the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, in 

coordination with the Gulf Coast States 

and contiguous States, shall jointly review 

and assess Federal and State evacuation 

plans (including the cost of the plans) for 

catastrophic hurricanes and other 

catastrophic events impacting the Gulf 

Coast region and report its findings and 

recommendations to Congress.” 

Section 10204 SAFETEA-LU and 

FY 2006 DOT Appropriations Act 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-2 

called for by President George W. Bush,2

 the Homeland Security Council report, The Federal 

Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned,3

 and Conference Report (H.Rept. 109-241) to 

the Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-90).4 The 

U.S. DOT study focuses more attention on the evacuation component of emergency operations 

planning, and is limited to the Gulf Coast region. 

Methodology 

The U.S. DOT developed a systematic, analytical process to evaluate the readiness and adequacy 

of State and local jurisdictions evacuation plans. The methodology included identifying the 

major components of a comprehensive evacuation planning and implementation program, 

collecting current practices and information on evacuations, developing criteria to assess current 

plans, conducting on-site discussions with State and local emergency management officials, and 

identifying lessons learned and best practices from recent evacuations. The assessment criteria 

were developed from current Federal guidelines on evacuations; the issues identified in 

SAFETEA-LU and the FY 2006 DOT Appropriations Act; recent government reports on 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita; and additional issues identified by U.S. DOT. 

Evacuation plans for all 5 Gulf Coast States—Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Texas—and a sample of 58 counties and parishes in each State were assessed based on how well 

they address the following seven key elements of evacuation planning and implementation: 

1. Decision making and management 

2. Evacuation planning 

3. Public communications and preparedness 

4. Evacuation of people with special needs 

5. Evacuation operations for all modes of transportation 

6. Evacuation-related sheltering considerations 

7. Training and exercises. 

To augment the review of evacuation plans, the U.S. DOT conducted meetings with State and 

local officials responsible for evacuations in the Gulf Coast States to clarify information in the 

plans, learn about plan updates that are anticipated, discuss constraints that State and local 

agencies face in planning for and conducting evacuations, and solicit recommendations on how 

evacuation capabilities could be improved. Discussions were also held with representatives of 

the bus, railroad, and airline industries as well as the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Red Cross, and other stakeholder groups 

to obtain their perspectives on actions that would improve evacuation capabilities. 

Summary of Major Findings 

Table ES-1 summarizes the overall assessment of State and local evacuation plans with respect 

to the key elements of evacuation planning and implementation. The table shows that evacuation 

plans in the Gulf Coast States generally reflect current guidance contained in the Federal 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-3 

Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) 1996 Guide for All-Hazard Emergency 

Operations Planning commonly known as State and Local Guide (SLG) 101. 

Decision Making and Management 

Most State and local evacuation plans have adequate decision making and management 

structures for evacuations associated with non-catastrophic incidents. However, many of these 

plans do not adequately address requirements for decision making and management of mass 

evacuations associated with catastrophic incidents. There are several reasons for this. First, 

existing guidance does not provide sufficient technical assistance on how to manage evacuations 

associated with catastrophic incidents. Second, few multi-State exercises have been conducted 

until recently to test the decision making and management structure against requirements for 

catastrophic incidents. State and local agencies have not had the benefits of these exercises to 

refine their decision making and management processes based on lessons learned from them. 

Table ES-1: Status of Evacuation Plans in the Gulf Coast Region 

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Management

Control

Scalable

Plans

Basic Plan

SOPs

Re-Entry

Public

Preparedness

Evacuation

Information

Evacuation

Status

Identify

Requirements

Distinct

Populations

All Modes

Transportation

Alternatives

Evacuation

Routes

Contraflow

Mutual Aid

Availability &

Status

Accountability

Animals

Volunteers

Continual

Improvement

Decision

Making

Planning Communication Special Needs Operations Sheltering Training

Plan Key Elements

Assessment

Very

Effective

Effective

Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Planning 

Generally, the planning components of State and local evacuation plans were rated effective in 

terms of how well they met existing planning guidelines. As shown in Table ES-1, plans were 

" Catastrophic events are, by their nature, difficult to imagine and to adequately plan for, and the existing 

plans and training proved inadequate in Katrina." 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, April 2006. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-4 

strong in requiring the development of standard operating procedures for agencies involved in 

evacuations, and adequately covered general evacuation planning considerations including 

hazards that could require a large-scale evacuation, the communities that should be evacuated 

under different conditions, the number of people and vehicles to be evacuated, decision points 

for an evacuation, the estimated time needed to complete the evacuation, and the distance 

evacuees must travel to ensure their safety. Plans were weaker in terms of provisions for 

returning evacuees to their homes. 

While many State and local plans include contingencies and are scalable to reflect evacuation 

requirements for different intensity hurricanes, plans generally do not assume evacuations on the 

scale of those required for Hurricane Katrina. The demands associated with a catastrophe such 

as Hurricane Katrina are simply beyond the scenarios upon which the plans are based. Many 

States in the Gulf Coast region and elsewhere are in the process of updating their evacuation 

plans based on lessons learned from evacuations associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and 

other recent hurricanes. In particular, State and local officials are reviewing provisions for 

obtaining outside transportation services to augment local resources and the coordination of 

plans with neighboring States and jurisdictions. They are also reviewing their existing mutual aid 

agreements which are formal agreements among emergency responders to lend assistance across 

jurisdictional boundaries when needed. These updates should improve State and local ability to 

manage mass evacuation needs related to catastrophic incidents. 

Having a good plan, however, is no guarantee that evacuations will be carried out smoothly, 

particularly mass evacuations that involve many different agencies at all levels of government. 

Joint exercises at the regional level in which plans are tested against different scenarios are 

important ways that officials from different agencies can become accustomed to working 

together and can assess how their plans address different contingencies. As noted, States seldom 

conduct the kind of regional exercise that would be required to test some of the requirements that 

were faced during Hurricane Katrina. The multi-State regional tabletop exercises that DHS is 

conducting to prepare for the 2006 hurricane season should help to strengthen the decision 

making and management elements of local, State, and Federal plans, as well as identify 

weaknesses in specific plan elements that can be corrected. 

In the Gulf Coast region, there is some coordination of evacuation plans with adjoining 

jurisdictions, but the coordination is inadequate for catastrophes on the scale of Hurricane 

Katrina. Most States have mutual-aid agreements and belong to the Emergency Management 

Assistance Compact (EMAC). EMAC is a legal agreement among member States that outlines 

the procedures, including reimbursement and liability issues, for providing assistance to other 

member States in the event of an emergency or disaster. However, mass evacuations place 

tremendous demands on transportation and sheltering systems that overwhelm the capacity of 

adjacent States. The Gulf Coast States have attempted to coordinate contraflow plans with 

neighboring States that may be affected, but exercises, traffic simulations, and other analyses to 

evaluate evacuation options for catastrophic incidents on the scale of Hurricane Katrina have not 

been conducted. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-5 

Public Communication and Preparedness 

Good communications with the public is one of the most important elements of an evacuation. 

This includes both communicating information to prepare citizens to evacuate and 

communicating with evacuees during the course of an evacuation. As shown in Table ES-1, 

most State and local evacuation plans have adequate provisions for communicating basic 

information to residents about when they should evacuate, the designated evacuation routes, 

what they should take with them, the location of shelters, and other information needed before 

they evacuate. 

State and local governments use a variety of methods of communications to inform residents 

before an evacuation begins. These methods include television, radio, the Internet, telephone, 

and a variety of other methods. Not everyone regularly listens to media outlets or has access to 

all of these means of communications. This situation is especially true for those with the greatest 

need for specialized information. Several Gulf Coast States provide evacuation-related 

information in Spanish for their Spanish-speaking residents and New Orleans provides 

information and conducts classes in Vietnamese. These programs are excellent for providing 

general evacuation-related information, but plans are not as well developed for providing realtime information to persons with limited English proficiency about who should evacuate, when 

they should evacuate, and any changes that may have been made in plans for evacuation by 

public transportation. Few States, counties, or parishes have special programs to provide 

information to people with visual or hearing impairments, the homeless, or other special needs 

groups that are difficult to reach through normal communications channels. One good practice is 

that all of the televised hurricane briefings in Florida from the State Emergency Operations 

Center also include a sign language interpreter as part of the briefings. 

Methods for communicating evacuation options by modes other than personal vehicles are not 

well developed in most cases. A number of jurisdictions indicate locations where public 

transportation may be obtained, but many have no specific services identified to assist persons in 

getting to those designated locations. This situation is a particular problem for people with 

various disabilities. 

Methods of communicating with evacuees during plan execution are not as well developed as 

are plans for communicating prior to an evacuation and need to be improved in most 

jurisdictions. Communications are essential to provide information on the availability of hotels, 

shelters, food, fuel, and medical and other essential services along evacuation routes; traffic 

conditions on alternative evacuation routes; the location of shelters that will accept pets and that 

are equipped to handle people with various special needs; the identities of those being evacuated 

on public transportation; and where those persons are being taken. 

Methods of communicating information prior to an evacuation may not be available during an 

evacuation. Evacuees typically will not have access to the Internet or to television—two of the 

primary means of providing pre-evacuation information. Radio may be available to those in cars 

and those who have battery-operated radios. Many States position dynamic message signs along 

evacuation routes. State personnel staff rest areas, truck weigh stations, welcome centers, and 

service plazas to provide information to evacuees en route. Motorist information services such 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-6 

as the 511telephone system Florida has deployed or highway advisory radio can provide routespecific information. However, to get real-time traffic information on evacuation routes, traffic 

monitoring equipment is required. That equipment is not widely deployed in most rural areas 

along the Gulf Coast, except in Florida, which has an extensive statewide traffic monitoring 

system. 

Effective communications before a catastrophic incident can play an important role in 

convincing residents that they should evacuate. During an evacuation, effective communications 

will enhance the efficiency of the system and also reduce the associated mental and physical 

strains. People must leave most of their possessions and the security of their homes, often with 

little knowledge of where they will stay or for how long. The more information that can be 

provided to residents about the availability of shelters, what they can take, provisions for 

accommodating pets and service animals, security that will be provided while they are away 

from their homes, and other factors of concern, the less stress there will be Technical assistance 

and other information is available for some of these special requirements, but additional work is 

required to develop a comprehensive resource describing the special needs of different groups. 

Evacuation of People with Special Needs 

Plans in the Gulf Coast region for evacuating persons with various special needs generally are 

not well developed. Hospitals, nursing homes, prisons, and other institutions generally are 

responsible for developing their own evacuation plans and deciding when to evacuate their 

residents. They face unique issues such as whether the risks of not evacuating outweigh the risks 

of moving seriously ill individuals. Widely reported stories about the breakdown of these plans 

during the 2005 hurricane season at certain institutions highlight the need to ensure responsible 

individuals have access to the latest information about a catastrophic incident and that 

institutions’ evacuation plans will work in the event of a mass evacuation of the entire population 

of an area. 

Evacuating those with special needs who are not in institutions also presents problems that are 

not well addressed in most State and local plans. Locating where these individuals live often is 

difficult, despite attempts by local agencies to maintain lists of persons with various special 

needs. New Orleans, for instance, is establishing a 311 information hotline to register residents 

with special needs for evacuations. Other areas in the region have similar registration programs, 

but those programs are only as good as the willingness of persons to register. Privacy interests 

and some individuals' reluctance to identify themselves as having special needs are 

considerations that must be addressed in establishing a comprehensive registry. 

Persons who use wheelchairs, those who rely on special medical equipment, those with hearing 

or visual impairments, the elderly, and other groups all have unique communication, 

transportation, and sheltering needs that must be planned for in advance. This includes ensuring 

that all forms of temporary housing (e.g., shelters, trailers, etc.) meet Americans with Disabilities 

Act guidelines. Providing these specialized services in the course of a mass evacuation presents 

particular challenges. Provisions to meet transportation and sheltering requirements of these 

various special needs groups must be improved in most evacuation plans. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-7 

Evacuation Operations 

The actual operation of transportation systems throughout the course of catastrophic incidents is 

one of the most important parts of the evacuation process. For known or imminent incidents 

such as hurricanes, State and local operations plans in the Gulf Coast region are generally 

adequate for highway evacuations, although there are significant differences in the extent to 

which certain issues are covered. Almost all jurisdictions do a good job in terms of designating 

highway evacuation routes and directing evacuees in private vehicles to those routes. Plans are 

less robust for monitoring traffic on evacuation routes and providing real-time operational 

information to emergency managers, upon which they can make decisions concerning those 

routes. 

Understanding the time required for evacuations is essential for all those who must evacuate to 

do so safely. A number of evacuation planning and operations models have been developed by 

Federal agencies and are available to State and local agencies. FEMA, the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) conduct hurricane evacuation studies for the Gulf Coast and other States to help State 

and local emergency managers decide who should evacuate during a hurricane threat and when 

the evacuation order should be given based on the estimated time to evacuate a certain number of 

persons from a given location. Many emergency managers rely on the information in these 

studies, but some States reported that they sometimes forgo study updates because their 25-

percent share of the cost of the study is a constraint. If outdated studies are used, the times 

required to evacuate may not take into account new development, highway improvements that 

have been made and other changes that have occurred. While hurricane evacuation studies do 

consider people with special needs, they often do not provide all of the information that would be 

desirable on the time needed to evacuate various special needs populations. 

An important lesson learned in evacuations associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was the 

necessity of having food, water, restrooms, fuel, and shelter opportunities along evacuation 

routes. State and local plans generally recognize the need to have these services prepositioned 

and available along evacuation routes. However, plans for providing real-time information on 

the availability and location of these services are not as well developed. 

All States in the region have a plan for contraflow operations on certain limited access 

evacuation routes, but county plans often do not address those contraflow plans. This failure to 

integrate State and local activities in these contraflow plans is the primary reason why overall 

plans are rated low in terms of contraflow operations. 

While State and local evacuation operations plans were generally rated as adequate, most need 

improvement with respect to the role of all safe and practical modes of transportation. In 

rural areas, the only alternative to the automobile that may be mentioned in evacuation plans is 

the school bus, but some State officials noted that their school buses are in poor condition and 

not capable of making long highway trips. Plans may provide information on who to contact to 

mobilize those buses, but few details typically are given on how those vehicles will be used, the 

availability of drivers to operate those vehicles, or the bus routes or staging areas to collect 

evacuees. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-8 

Even in urban areas where more modes are available, few plans recognize the potential role for 

intercity buses, trains, airplanes, and boats. These modes may be particularly important for 

persons who cannot evacuate in personal vehicles including persons with various disabilities, the 

elderly who cannot or prefer not to drive, low-income households that do not own automobiles, 

and those who are incarcerated or are in other institutions such as nursing homes or hospitals. 

Transportation needs associated with each of these groups may differ, but few plans address 

these specific needs. 

With advanced planning, school buses and local transit buses can be mobilized by local 

jurisdictions with little advanced notice; commercial vehicles such as intercity buses, trains, 

airplanes, and boats require more advanced notice. Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) or 

other such formal agreements with owners and operators of these vehicles are the best way to be 

sure they will be available if needed. Several States, including Texas, have contracted for buses 

to be available for mass evacuations. The potential need to provide national or regional level 

coordination of the use of these other modes, especially aviation, must also be addressed. 

Amtrak has developed a generic MOU to provide evacuation services to jurisdictions. Care must 

be taken to ensure that agreements involving several jurisdictions and the same commercial 

carrier do not exceed the carrier’s capacity. 

Many other details must be considered when using commercial carriers from outside of the 

immediate area. These include ensuring that destinations where persons will be taken for each of 

these modes have been identified and confirmed; ensuring that interstate operating authority is in 

place or can quickly be obtained; and ensuring that everyone is aware of how to get to those 

modes, where they will be taken, limitations on what can be brought on board, and how they can 

return to their community once it is safe. Few State and local plans address these details. 

Experiences in New Orleans in 2005 accentuated the need to include all modes of transportation 

in evacuation plans. New Orleans had a large segment of its population that could not evacuate 

in personal vehicles, and the City was unprepared to evacuate so many persons using other 

modes. Since Hurricane Katrina, however, the City has developed a plan for the use of multiple 

modes of transportation to evacuate those who cannot evacuate by private vehicle. This plan 

identifies target groups that will be evacuated by bus, railroad, and airplane, and how persons 

from each of these target groups will be transported to those modes. In addition, the City has 

enhanced their sheltering plan and will provide more information to citizens early in the season. 

One goal of the plan is to “create and maintain an environment where the decision to evacuate 

becomes more desirable than remaining behind.” 

Sheltering 

Sheltering is one of the most important considerations when planning evacuations. Table ES-1 

shows that, in general, State and local plans adequately address sheltering. However, while Gulf 

Coast evacuation plans generally do a good job of identifying shelter locations in their State, 

most do not mention specific provisions for monitoring the status of those shelters and providing 

real-time information on the availability of space. The plans generally do not contain information 

on shelters in other States. Neither do they have plans for providing information on the 

availability of rooms at hotels, motels, and other private facilities where evacuees may want to 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-9 

stay. The availability of such information would significantly improve the efficiency of 

evacuations and reduce evacuees’ stress. 

All States along the Gulf Coast are members of the EMAC and have mutual-aid agreements with 

other member States, including agreements to accommodate evacuees. They recognize that if any 

sizeable number of persons must be evacuated, their own shelter capacity may be insufficient 

and they will have to rely on shelters in adjacent jurisdictions. Many State and local governments 

rely on local chapters of the American Red Cross and other volunteer organizations to set up, 

staff, and operate shelters. The American Red Cross and DHS/FEMA are the lead agencies for 

Emergency Support Function (ESF) 6, Mass Care, which covers sheltering activities. Other 

States, such as Alabama, are assuming more of the responsibility themselves, although they 

continue to work with the American Red Cross. 

Accommodating pets at shelters is a significant issue. The American Red Cross indicates that it 

generally cannot accept pets in shelters because of State health and safety regulations, although 

they do accept service animals. Many States are in the process of reevaluating these regulations 

and more latitude in accommodating pets can be expected in the future. Guidelines will have to 

be developed to ensure that public health and safety are not compromised when accommodating 

pets at public shelters. 

Training and Exercises 

Most State and local evacuation plans contain provisions for training and conducting exercises to 

test their plans that are generally adequate for most evacuations. Few, however, contain 

provisions for conducting multi-State exercises involving officials from other States, the Federal 

government, and other organizations with evacuation responsibilities to test the adequacy of 

plans for catastrophic incidents. This lack of regional exercises prior to Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita contributed to some of the problems encountered during those evacuations. There now is a 

much greater recognition of the importance of regional exercises, and as noted above, the DHS is 

sponsoring a series of regional exercises that will provide an opportunity for officials from 

different States to work together with Federal agencies to evaluate their plans, identify 

weaknesses, and develop strategies for meeting the needs of future catastrophic incidents. 

Costs to Develop and Update Plans 

The costs to develop and update plans varies based on the population, the geography and surge 

areas, the number of potential evacuation routes to be analyzed, the demographics of the area 

(e.g., large populations of people with low income or large numbers of people with special 

needs), the number of neighboring jurisdictions to coordinate with, and other factors. In addition 

to costs to develop and update plans, State and local agencies incur costs to exercise those plans 

on a regular basis. 

Very little data is available on the costs of evacuation plans and the limited cost information 

received for this study is incomplete. State officials noted that determining the amount of 

funding allocated and spent for evacuation planning would be difficult since funding comes from 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-10

many sources at the Federal, State, and local level, and many agencies within the various levels 

of government have agencies involved in evacuation planning. 

The States do not appear to budget specific amounts for evacuation planning, but include these 

costs within broader emergency management programs. While State officials reported 

evacuation plans are executed with current funding, they felt that funding was constrained. The 

officials did not identify what activities were constrained, and constraints were not discernible 

from the data as there is no accounting of budgeted versus actual costs for evacuation plans. 

Activities to Prepare for the 2006 Hurricane Season 

As noted above, Federal, State, and local officials recognize the need to be better prepared for 

the 2006 hurricane season than they were for the 2005 season. All of the States and some of the 

local jurisdictions in the Gulf Coast region have reviewed their evacuation and overall 

emergency operations plans and many made changes to address lessons learned last year. For 

example, on March 21, Governor Perry of Texas signed an Executive Order that, among other 

things, calls for development of a statewide hurricane evacuation and shelter plan, a separate 

evacuation and shelter plan for people with special needs, contraflow plans for all major 

evacuation routes, a plan to ensure fuel availability along all evacuation routes, and a public 

awareness initiative. In addition to the regional tabletop exercises being conducted by DHS, 

States and several urban areas in the Gulf Coast region are conducting exercises to improve their 

preparedness for hurricanes. 

The U.S. DOT has undertaken a number of initiatives to prepare for the 2006 hurricane season 

including: (1) improving coordination among those with transportation responsibilities 

associated with a catastrophic incident, (2) coordinating with the United States Army Corp of 

Engineers (USACE) and FEMA to improve communications capabilities, (3) examining current 

regulations that may affect the transportation industry’s ability to respond to catastrophic 

incidents and developing procedures to remove or dramatically reduce impediments, (4) 

coordinating with transportation industry representatives, the American Red Cross, the Humane 

Society, and other stakeholders to improve evacuation capabilities based on lessons learned in 

2005, and (5) conducting training and process improvements based on after-action reviews. 

Federal, State, and local agencies, transportation and shelter providers, and others involved in 

evacuations are now better prepared to handle the demands of a catastrophic hurricane or other 

catastrophic incident. The challenges of responding to an incident like Hurricane Katrina and the 

flooding that followed remain daunting, however, and many additional steps need to be taken 

before we can be confident that we are fully 

prepared to respond to another incident of similar 

proportions. 

Recommendations 

Throughout the assessment of State and local 

evacuation plans, actions that could be taken to 

improve various aspects of evacuation planning 

and implementation are identified in the main 

"Hope for the best but prepare for the 

worst." 

"Preparing for an event like Hurricane 

Katrina or any natural disaster, we should 

never feel like we are completely 

prepared. We can always do better." 

Robert R. Latham, Jr., Executive Director - 

Mississippi Emergency Management 

Agency, December 7, 2005.
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-11

report. Based on lessons learned from recent mass evacuations, State and local governments 

already are beginning to incorporate some of those improvements into their plans. Federal 

agencies also are in the process of examining how they can improve their response to 

catastrophic incidents that overwhelm State and local resources. Near-term actions that will 

improve overall capabilities to respond to hurricanes during the 2006 hurricane season include 

the regional exercises that DHS recently conducted in the Gulf Coast States, the U.S. DOT 

activities noted above, the many State and local actions that have been taken based on lessons 

learned during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and actions that transportation and shelter providers 

have already taken to enhance their capabilities. 

The following are recommendations for ways to further improve mass evacuation planning and 

implementation capabilities that extend beyond what Federal, State, and local governments are 

already doing. 

1. Develop regional plans for mass evacuations in connection with catastrophic incidents 

on the scale of Hurricane Katrina. These plans should be developed jointly by State 

and local officials within the region in cooperation with officials from appropriate 

Federal agencies; providers of all safe and practical modes of transportation and 

providers of shelters, food, fuel, and other necessities; managers of hospitals, nursing 

homes, emergency medical services (air, ground, etc.) jails, and other institutions with 

their own evacuation plans; and representatives of various special needs populations. 

This recommendation goes beyond the recommendation in the Homeland Security Council 

Report, The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned. This report, which is 

the result of a comprehensive review of the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina directed 

by the President to identify changes needed to improve the Nation’s preparedness to respond 

to natural and manmade disasters, recommends that individual State and local agencies 

should be required to have evacuation plans as a condition of receiving Homeland Security 

grants.

2. Regional exercises to test plans and decision making structures for different mass 

evacuation scenarios should be conducted on a regular basis to ensure that Federal, 

State, and local agencies are prepared to respond to different types of catastrophic 

incidents. 

3. Responsible Federal agencies should review the National Response Plan, FEMA’s State 

and Local Guide 101, concepts of operations for the various Emergency Service 

Functions, and other appropriate planning guidance related to evacuations and update 

as needed to cover the special requirements of mass evacuations from incidents of 

Hurricane Katrina’s magnitude. 

In particular, these guidance documents should be refined to more specifically recognize 

needs and challenges associated with coordinating the activities of multiple agencies 

representing different levels of government across a multi-State region of the country. 

4. Transportation agencies and operators should be more directly involved in key aspects 

of evacuation planning and implementation. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-12

Transportation by all safe and practical modes is a key element of evacuations. Failure to 

include transportation agencies in the evacuation planning and operations can lead to 

inefficiencies and delays in evacuating citizens, especially those most in need of assistance. 

Including highway, rail, air, and other appropriate modes in planning and operations helps to 

ensure that required resources are identified, including those needed for mass evacuations, 

and that transportation is available to meet the unique needs of various special needs groups. 

It also helps to ensure that critical details such as the need for agreements on the destinations 

to which various modes will transport evacuees are considered. 

5. Responsible State and local agencies should develop and deploy systems to provide 

information to evacuees and emergency managers during the course of evacuations on 

the status of traffic, shelters, fuel, and other services along evacuation routes. 

Systems should be based on existing communications network and intelligent transportation 

systems (ITS) architecture and to the maximum extent possible should be incorporated into 

general purpose motorist information and traffic monitoring services used during normal 

traffic operations. 

6. State and local agencies should work with the special needs communities to develop 

systems whereby those requiring specialized transportation or sheltering services 

during evacuations can make those needs known to emergency managers and operators 

of transportation and sheltering services before evacuations. 

This information should be maintained in a way that can easily be updated and that recognizes 

privacy and other concerns of various special needs groups. 

7. Sheltering requirements for all segments of the population and evacuees by all modes of 

transportation should be more directly integrated into the evacuation planning process. 

Sheltering needs vary considerably for different groups of people and must be explicitly 

recognized in evacuation plans. There are significant issues regarding accommodation of 

pets at shelters that need to be resolved. 

DHS is conducting a series of hurricane preparedness exercises in the Gulf Coast region to 

prepare for the 2006 hurricane season. The U.S. DOT and other Federal agencies are 

participating in these exercises. The Federal government should continue to organize and 

facilitate these types of regional exercises in high-priority areas to bring together local, State, 

and Federal agencies to integrate and test their plans and procedures. 

The Homeland Security Council, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Government 

Accountability Office have all issued reports looking at various aspects of the Federal response 

to the catastrophic hurricanes that struck in 2005. These reports contain numerous 

recommendations on actions that could allow the Federal Government to work more effectively 

with State and local government in responding to future catastrophic incidents. Many of these 

recommendations touch on aspects of mass evacuations. The U.S. DOT, DHS, and other Federal 

agencies are reviewing these recommendations along with other internal and external 

assessments of responses to recent catastrophic incidents. In the meantime, special federal 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 ES-13

assistance will be provided this year in areas that are still recovering from the 2005 hurricane 

season and which are at enhanced risk due to the damage experienced last year. The U.S. DOT, 

in coordination with DHS, stands ready to quickly make evacuation experts available to local 

and state governments that want to better understand their strengths and vulnerabilities in 

preparing for and implementing successful evacuations. 

While many short-term actions have already been taken, other changes could require legislative 

changes. Potential longer-term changes are being carefully considered before any legislative 

proposals are sent forward. The U.S. DOT is examining a number of specific options that will 

enhance its ability to respond to evacuation needs associated with catastrophic incidents. In 

addition to activities noted above that have already been done to prepare for the 2006 hurricane 

season, the U.S. DOT is examining a range of potential longer-term options including ways to 

strengthen internal resources and processes to better respond to catastrophic incidents and ways 

to enhance the contribution of various U.S. DOT programs to improve State and local evacuation 

capabilities. Once decisions have been made on changes that would enhance the U.S. DOT’s 

contribution to a coordinated Federal, State, and local response effort, as well as changes to 

improve State and local planning and operations capabilities, any required legislative proposals 

will be developed and sent to Congress. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 1-1 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

This report presents the results of an assessment of evacuation plans in the Gulf Coast region by 

the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The study was conducted in response to a 

Congressional request to gather information on mass evacuations from catastrophic incidents. 

While local and State agencies nationwide handle evacuations of hundreds to thousands of 

people from wild fires, floods, tornadoes, or hazardous materials releases, catastrophic incidents 

such as hurricanes may necessitate the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people. For 

example, more than 1.2 million people in Louisiana were evacuated before Hurricane Katrina’s 

landfall, and still more than 100,000 people were evacuated from New Orleans in the week 

following the storm. Three weeks later, 1.8 million people in Texas were ordered to evacuate 

before Hurricane Rita made landfall. This study evaluated how well local and State plans meet 

current evacuation guidance, even if this guidance does not sufficiently address catastrophic 

incidents the size of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Congressional Requirements for the U.S. DOT Study 

In Section 10204 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) and Section 187 of the FY 2006 Department of 

Transportation Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-115), Congress tasked the U.S. DOT, in 

cooperation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to “review and assess 

Federal and State evacuation plans (including the costs of the plans) for catastrophic hurricanes 

and other catastrophic events impacting the Gulf Coast Region and report its findings and 

recommendations to Congress.”5 Congress specifically requested that the assessment include the 

following factors: 

1. All safe and practical modes of transportation available for evacuations; 

2. The extent to which evacuation plans are coordinated with neighboring States and adjoining 

jurisdictions; 

3. Methods of communicating evacuation plans and preparing citizens in advance of 

evacuations; 

4. Methods of coordinating communication with evacuees during plan execution; 

5. The availability of food, water, restrooms, fueling stations, and shelter opportunities along 

the evacuation routes; 

6. The time required to evacuate under the plan; 

7. The physical and mental strains associated with the evacuation; and 

8. The cost of the plan. 

In addition to these factors, the U.S. DOT assessed the extent to which current plans cover other 

factors needed to effectively plan and execute a mass evacuation including decision making and 

management; evacuation of persons who are transit-dependent, have various special needs, have 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 1-2 

limited English proficiency, or have pets or service animals; and identification of shelter 

locations and destinations for evacuation by bus, train, airplane, or other modes. This report 

presents the results of the assessment of both the congressionally mandated factors and the 

additional U.S. DOT study criteria. 

Coordination with DHS Study on the Status of Catastrophic 

Planning 

This assessment of evacuation plans for Gulf Coast States is a companion to the DHS study 

called for in the Conference Report on the Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2006 

Appropriations Act (H. Rept. 109-241). In that report, Congress directed the DHS to report on 

the status of catastrophic planning in all States and the 75 largest urban areas. The Nationwide 

Plan Review: Phase I Report was delivered to Congress on February 10, 2006, and details the 

findings of Phase I of the study based on self assessments submitted by States, territories, and 

urban areas. Phase II of the DHS study will report on the peer review visits by DHS teams to 

each of these areas to validate the self assessments and determine requirements for on-site 

planning assistance. U.S. DOT and DHS have consulted on the methodologies and visits of 

these two studies to build on and strengthen the results of each other. 

Background 

Congress requested that this study focus on the critical 

issues surrounding mass evacuations associated with 

hurricanes and other catastrophic events in the Gulf Coast 

region. Previous mass evacuations have been implemented 

in connection with other hurricanes in the Gulf Coast 

region, but all paled in comparison to the evacuations 

associated with Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The 2005 

hurricane season was the worst ever recorded in the 

Atlantic Basin. Seventeen new records were set, including 

the most named storms, the most hurricanes, and the most 

Category 5 hurricanes. Damage estimates were in excess of 

$125 billion—more than twice the cost of any other 

hurricane season. Hurricane Katrina alone accounted for 

over $80 billion—the highest loss ever recorded from a 

single storm.6

 

Not only has Hurricane Katrina become the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history, it has 

also proven to be one of the deadliest. When it made landfall near the Louisiana-Mississippi 

border on the morning of August 29, 2005, it set in motion a series of events that exposed vast 

numbers of Americans to extraordinary suffering. From the marshes of Louisiana’s Plaquemines 

Parish to the urban center of New Orleans, to the coastal communities of Mississippi and 

Alabama, Katrina cut an enormous swath of physical destruction, environmental devastation, and 

human suffering. Three weeks later, Hurricane Rita forced a similar series of events on the 

citizens of southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas. 

Records set in the 2005 

Hurricane Season include the 

totals for: 

 Name storms: 27; previous 

record: 21 in 1933 

 Hurricanes: 15; previous 

record: 12 in 1969 

 Major hurricanes hitting the 

U.S.: Four (Dennis, Katrina, 

Rita and Wilma); previous 

record: Three, most recently 

in 2004 

 Hurricanes of Category 5 

intensity: Three (Katrina, Rita 

and Wilma); previous record: 

Two in 1960 and 1961 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 1-3 

Moreover, more severe hurricane seasons are predicted in the near future. The National Oceanic 

& Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that “the Atlantic Basin is in the active phase of a 

multi-decadal cycle in which optimal conditions in the ocean and atmosphere, including warmerthan-average sea-surface temperatures and low wind shear, enhance hurricane activity. This 

increase in the number and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes can span multiple decades 

(approximately 20 to 30 years).”7

Local and State agencies routinely handle evacuations from wildfires, floods, tornadoes, and 

hazardous materials releases. A recent study by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) estimated that a large-scale evacuation of 1,000 people or more occurs, on average, every 

three weeks nationwide. However, out of the total of 230 large-scale evacuations, the NRC study 

found that there were 14 evacuations of 100,000 people or more in a 12 1⁄2-year period between 

January 1, 1990 and June 30, 2003. Of these large-scale evacuations, only two involved 

evacuations of more than one million people. The NRC study found that community familiarity 

with emergency alert procedures and door-to-door notification of impacted areas was very 

important to an effective evacuation. The study also found that a high level of coordination 

among agencies, an effective command structure, and training and evacuation exercises were 

also cited in the interviews as contributing to efficiency and effectiveness of the evacuation. In 

addition, cooperation from evacuees was repeatedly cited as contributing to safe, efficient, and 

effective evacuations. 

This report details the assessment of local, State, and Federal plans for evacuations related to 

hurricanes and other catastrophic events in the Gulf Coast region. The assessment includes plans 

for moving people away from areas threatened by catastrophic events and providing critical food, 

water, and supplies for evacuees en route, as well as plans for providing shelter to evacuees from 

other areas. In addition to assessing current evacuation plans, the report summarizes lessons 

learned from and best practices in planning and conducting mass evacuations. This information 

should provide a valuable resource to State and local governments in the region and in other 

areas, many of whom currently are in the process of updating their emergency operations plans. 

The report also summarizes current Federal guidance and assistance on evacuation planning and 

implementation. While the current guidance documents address evacuations, they do not 

specifically address different strategies and requirements for an evacuation versus a mass 

evacuation from a catastrophic incident. The Catastrophic Incident Annex of the National 

Response Plan (NRP) includes overall policies and a concept of operations, but does not provide 

guidance on mass evacuations from a catastrophic incident. The Annex states that normal 

procedures for ESFs may be streamlined or expedited to meet the requirements of a catastrophic 

event and gives examples in mass care, public health, medical care, causalities, and public 

information. Additional guidance is being developed in a Catastrophic Incident Supplement 

(CIS) to the NRP. Following Hurricane Katrina, President Bush ordered a comprehensive 

review of the Federal response to the hurricane by his Assistant for Homeland Security and 

Counterterrorism. The resulting report, as well as reports by the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO), the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate, assess the Federal 

response and make numerous recommendations that are already under consideration. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 1-4 

Based on information obtained during the course of the U.S. DOT study, this report includes 

recommendations on steps that can be taken at all levels of government to improve readiness and 

capabilities to evacuate persons in the event of hurricanes or other catastrophes. 

Study Scope and Methods 

This study examined 63 evacuation plans for States, counties, parishes, and major urban areas 

within the Gulf Coast region. The study evaluated evacuation plans maintained by emergency 

management agencies as well as evacuation plans from other agencies and organizations with 

responsibility for various components of an evacuation including transportation agencies, state 

police, and other organizations involved in various aspects of evacuation and sheltering. Local 

plans were included in the analysis because local governments generally have the primary 

responsibility for initiating and managing evacuations. While State and Federal resources will be 

required for mass evacuations associated with catastrophic incidents, local governments have 

significant responsibilities during such evacuations. 

Evacuation plans were not requested for all counties and parishes in Alabama, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Texas—rather, plans were requested only for those jurisdictions directly on the 

coast or one county or parish removed from the coast. These jurisdictions are most at risk from 

catastrophic hurricanes; therefore, the adequacy of their evacuation plans is particularly 

important. The U.S. DOT requested all county plans from the State of Florida because of its 

unique geography. While plans were not received from all of the counties and parishes, the U.S. 

DOT reviewed and assessed the majority of the plans and collected a wealth of information to 

support its findings and recommendations. Sheltering plans of States adjacent to the Gulf Coast 

States were also examined to determine whether and how those plans considered needs to shelter 

evacuees form the gulf Coast States. 

Detailed written evaluations of evacuation plans for States and local jurisdictions in the region 

were not prepared. Rather, evacuation plans were evaluated with the goal of assessing their 

effectiveness—specifically, how well they address key elements that are critical to successful 

evacuation planning and implementation. An important part of the evaluation was a visit to each 

State in the region to discuss plans in person with State and local officials responsible for 

developing and executing them. In addition to details about their plans, State and local officials 

were asked about constraints faced in creating and executing evacuation plans, costs to prepare 

and carry out plans, and actions that could be taken to improve their evacuation capabilities. 

It is important to remember that this assessment of plans is a “snapshot in time.” With each 

hurricane or other catastrophic incident, new challenges arise and lessons are learned. These 

lessons are then folded into the next update of Federal, State, and local plans and the planning 

cycle continues . This assessment is based upon criteria that were predicated on Federal 

planning guidance in place prior to the 2005 hurricane season, and the plans reviewed were 

generally in compliance with that guidance. This guidance addresses evacuation, but not mass 

evacuation from a catastrophic incident. Our experiences during the 2005 hurricane season are 

evidence that there is a need to review and assess plans for addressing mass evacuations from 

catastrophic incidents. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 1-5 

Additionally, this assessment focused on the written contents of the evacuation plans and not on 

the effectiveness of their execution during catastrophic incidents. Therefore, it is important to 

recognize that findings from this assessment may not reflect results from other studies that were 

conducted to assess the response to past catastrophic incidents, particularly to Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita. 

This assessment focused solely on one aspect of emergency management—evacuations in the 

Gulf Coast region. Again, it is therefore important to recognize that the assessment findings may 

differ slightly from those of other studies that looked at emergency preparedness in whole, such 

as the companion DHS report, or other studies such as the NRC report that presented case studies 

on 50 specific evacuations from across the Nation that occurred before July 2003. 

Best practices for evacuation planning were developed based on a review of existing literature, 

discussions with experts, and lessons learned from recent evacuations. These best practices 

serve as a benchmark both for evaluating existing State and local plans and for State and local 

agencies in updating their evacuation plans. The best practices consider the varying needs of 

evacuation relative to the area or type of catastrophe. The discussion of best practices for this 

report provides an overview of those factors that should be included in evacuation plans and 

considered in implementing emergency evacuations. This work will be expanded in another 

project by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FHWA is developing a series of 

“primers” on evacuations that will provide more detailed guidance on good practices in planning 

and conducting all types of evacuations. The primers will be widely distributed to the many 

different entities involved in evacuation planning and implementation and will also serve as 

training material for a series of regional workshops designed to assist those engaged in 

evacuation planning. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-1 

Chapter 2: Federal, State, Local, and 

Transportation Roles in Evacuations 

Federal, State, and Local Roles in Evacuations 

This section provides information on the current government framework, laws, regulations, and 

guidance on mass evacuations. It includes an overview of the roles and responsibilities of local, 

State, and Federal agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and current guidance 

materials on evacuations. 

The NRP defines a catastrophic event as any natural or manmade incident, including terrorism, 

that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting 

the population, infrastructure, environment, economy, national morale, and/or government 

functions. A catastrophic event could result in sustained national impacts over a prolonged 

period of time; almost immediately exceeds resources normally available to State, local, tribal, 

and private-sector authorities in the impacted area; and significantly interrupts governmental 

operations and emergency services to such an extent that national security could be threatened. 

State and local governments are the first line of emergency response in disasters. State and local 

governments have fire, police, emergency medical services (EMS) and emergency management 

agencies dedicated to disaster response. The recent White House report on the Federal response 

to Hurricane Katrina described the situation when normal emergency response to a disaster 

becomes a response to a catastrophic incident: 

However, in some instances, the State and local governments will be 

overwhelmed beyond their ability to satisfy their traditional roles in this system. 

Indeed, in some instances, State and local governments and responders may 

become victims themselves, prohibiting their ability to identify, request, receive, 

or deliver assistance. This is the moment of catastrophic crisis—the moment when 

911 calls are no longer answered; the moment when hurricane victims can no 

longer be timely evacuated or evacuees can no longer find shelter; the moment 

when police no longer patrol the streets, and the rule of law begins to break 

down.8

According to the NRP, an evacuation is an organized, phased, and supervised withdrawal, 

dispersal, or removal of civilians from dangerous or potentially dangerous areas, and includes 

their reception and care in safe areas. Initiating a mass evacuation may be one step in a 

comprehensive emergency response to a major disaster. Others steps could include, for example, 

activating emergency operations plans and establishing a unified area command; establishing 

communications; fire fighting, emergency medical services, and policing for public safety and 

security; implementing transportation and logistics plans to support the response and recovery as 

well as the evacuation; deploying urban search and rescue operations; establishing public health 

and medical services; establishing resource support; addressing agriculture, natural resources, 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-2 

and hazardous materials and response needs; and initiating infrastructure assessment and repair 

and long-term community recovery and mitigation. 

Evacuations can take many forms: 

• Spontaneous Evacuation. Residents or citizens in the threatened areas observe an emergency 

event or receive unofficial word of an actual or perceived threat and, without receiving 

instructions to do so, elect to evacuate the area. Their movement, means, and direction of 

travel is unorganized and unsupervised.9

• Voluntary Evacuation. This is a warning to persons within a designated area that a threat to 

life and property exists or is likely to exist in the immediate future. Individuals issued such a 

warning or order are not required to evacuate; however, it would be to their advantage to do 

so.10

• Mandatory or Directed Evacuation. This is a warning to persons within the designated area 

that an imminent threat to life and property exists and individuals must evacuate in 

accordance with the instructions of local officials.11

• Notice versus No-Notice Evacuation. These evacuations are also in the context of either a 

notice evacuation where sufficient planning time exists to warn citizens and to effectively 

implement a plan, or a no-notice evacuation where circumstances require immediate 

implementation of contingency plans. 

• Shelter-in-Place. Depending on the nature and timing of a catastrophe, emergency managers 

may warn people of whether it is safer to evacuate or to shelter in place. In an evacuation, 

people leave their homes and businesses and travel to a safe location away from danger. In 

some instances, it is safer for people to quickly seek shelter indoors—in homes, schools, 

businesses, or public buildings—than to try to travel. Shelter-in-place would be used when 

there is little time to react to an incident and it would be more dangerous to be outside trying 

to evacuate than to stay indoors for a short period of time. Additional protective actions that 

the emergency managers may recommend would include turning off air conditioners and 

ventilation systems and closing all windows and doors. Sheltering-in-place might be used, 

for example, in the event of a chemical accident. FEMA recommends people have food, 

water, and medical supplies and be prepared to stay indoors for at least three days12. 

While this study examines evacuation lessons learned from hurricane evacuations in the Gulf 

Coast region, many of the findings, lessons learned, and best practices are applicable for other 

catastrophic incidents requiring mass evacuation. These include, for example, catastrophic 

earthquakes; terrorist acts, military attacks, and bombings; floods; fire; tsunamis; tornados; other 

civil disasters (e.g., chemical spills and industrial accidents); or major transportation accidents, 

including train or airplane crashes. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-3 

National Policy Guidance 

Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the Administration and Congress have taken 

unprecedented steps to enhance the Nation’s emergency preparedness. The DHS was established 

to unify the vast national network of organizations and institutions involved in efforts to secure 

our Nation, and significant resources and assistance have been targeted toward State and local 

agencies with emergency management responsibilities. Other Federal agencies including the 

U.S. DOT also have long had key roles in responding to national disasters. To guide and 

integrate the work of the Federal agencies, the President issued a series of national policy 

statements called Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs). The HSPDs build on 

previous government and industry standards as well as the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) that has guided Federal support of State and local 

disaster response for more than 30 years. In addition, the HSPDs mandated the development of 

new national planning documents to provide a detailed framework for local, State, and Federal 

agencies to prepare and respond to major disasters and events, including mass evacuations. The 

Federal government’s support and assistance for mass evacuations is provided under this 

framework of law, policies, and plans: 

• Stafford Act: Under the Stafford Act, a Governor may request that the President declare an 

emergency or a major disaster. A Governor’s request is based on “a finding that the disaster 

is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the 

State and the affected local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary.”13 

Generally, the affected States share the costs of the Federal response 

• HSPD-5 Domestic Incident Management. The purpose of this policy is to enhance the 

capability of all levels of government across the Nation to work together efficiently and 

effectively using a national approach to domestic incident management. The policy requires 

an “all hazards approach,” which refers to preparedness for domestic terrorist attacks, major 

disasters, and other emergencies. Toward this end, HSPD-5 mandated DHS create two plans 

that define the specific requirements to ensure the necessary level of coordination—the 

National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the National Response Plan (NRP). 

— NIMS provides a consistent, nationwide 

approach for Federal, State, local, and 

tribal governments; the private sector; and 

NGOs to work together to prepare for, 

respond to, and recover from domestic 

incidents, regardless of cause, size, or 

complexity. To provide for interoperability 

and compatibility among Federal, State, 

local, and tribal capabilities, NIMS 

includes a core set of concepts, principles, 

and terminology including the Incident 

Command Structure (ICS). 

– The NRP is an all-discipline, all-hazards 

plan that provides the structure and 

mechanisms to coordinate a Federal 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-4 

response. The NRP includes a series of Incident Annexes for specialized situations and 

an annex on Catastrophic Incidents. The NRP enhances preparedness by defining the 

roles of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, as well as NGOs. Under the NRP, 

specific government and private sector capabilities are assigned responsibility for 

functional roles and responsibilities in Emergency Support Functions (ESFs). The ESFs 

and their primary agencies are shown in Table 2-1. The ESFs serve as the primary 

operational-level mechanism for Federal agencies to provide assistance to State, local, 

and tribal governments. Evacuation efforts by States and local governments would be 

supported under several ESFs including transportation, communication, mass care, and 

emergency management. The ESFs that support mass evacuation from a catastrophic 

incidents are described in more detail later in this chapter in the section on, “U.S. DOT 

Roles, Programs, and Initiatives to Support Evacuations.”

Table 2-1: Emergency Support Functions 

ESF Primary Department or Agency 

ESF-1 Transportation DOT 

ESF-2 Communications DHS (IAIP/NCS) 

ESF-3 Public Works and Engineering DOD (USACE) and DHS (FEMA) 

ESF-4 Firefighting USDA (Forest Service) 

ESF-5 Emergency Management DHS (FEMA) 

ESF-6 Mass Care, Housing, and Human Services DHS (FEMA) and American Red Cross 

ESF-7 Resource Support GSA 

ESF-8 Public Health and Medical Services HHS 

ESF-9 Urban Search and Rescue DHS (FEMA) 

ESF-10 Oil and Hazardous Materials Response EPA and DHS (U.S. Coast Guard) 

ESF-11 Agriculture and Natural Resources USDA and DOI 

ESF-12 Energy DOE 

ESF-13 Public Safety and Security DHS and DOJ 

ESF-14 Long-Term Community Recovery and 

Mitigation 

USDA, DOC, DHS (FEMA), HUD, Treas, 

and SBA 

ESF-15 External Affairs DHS (FEMA) 

• HSPD-8 National Preparedness. This directive calls for DHS and other Federal agencies to 

develop specific goals and plans that establish measurable priorities, targets, standards for 

preparedness assessments and strategies, and a system for assessing the Nation’s overall level 

of preparedness. The directive identifies steps for improved coordination and support of 

local, State, and Federal government emergency response. With regard to evacuations, 

HSPD-8 defines first responders as “those individuals who in the early stages of an incident 

are responsible for the protection and preservation of life.” This includes emergency 

management and transportation agencies planning and executing an emergency evacuation as 

first responders. 

— National Preparedness Guidance. This guidance identifies the tasks and capabilities 

that local, State, and Federal agencies will need to respond to disasters. The guidance 

calls for “capabilities-based planning,” which focuses initiatives on providing specific 

capabilities to meet a wide range of threats and hazards. This guidance was based on 

tasks and capabilities identified for responding to 15 National Planning Scenarios ranging 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-5 

from hurricanes and earthquakes to biological, chemical, and radiological events that 

represent plausible scenarios to identify the tasks and capabilities needed to respond to 

these events. Ten of the 15 scenarios include evacuation elements, and 6 include major 

evacuations of from 70,000 to 1 million people. These scenarios reflect a rigorous 

analytical effort by local, State, and Federal homeland security experts, and it is 

recognized that revisions will be needed over time to ensure the scenarios are accurate 

and representative.14 For example, the maximum evacuation envisioned in these 

scenarios was 1 million people, while 1.2 million were evacuated for Hurricane Katrina 

in 2005. 

— Universal Task List (UTL) and Target Capabilities List (TCL). In support of HSPD8, the DHS collaborated with public- and private-sector stakeholders to develop two tools 

for improving domestic preparedness—the UTL and the TCL. The UTL defines the tasks 

that need to be performed at all levels of government to prevent, respond to, and recover 

from a range of possible major events. The UTL is a “task menu” that collectively 

represents critical tasks for preparing for and responding to hazards. Jurisdictions and 

agencies select the tasks that apply to their roles in specific homeland security missions 

and build and maintain the capabilities required to perform those tasks. The TCL is a list 

of the capabilities needed to perform the tasks defined by the UTL. It is a tool that can be 

used at all levels of government to define roles in national preparedness and inform 

decisions about capabilities needed to prepare for a range of hazards. This includes 

specific tasks and capabilities necessary for mass evacuations such as traffic and 

transportation plans; plans, policies, and procedures for people with special needs; and 

emergency operations center management, as well as related functions such as mass care, 

planning, information sharing and collaboration, and citizen preparedness. As a 

requirement of HSPD-8, the TCL establishes “measurable readiness targets ... that 

appropriately balance the potential threat and magnitude of terrorist attacks, major 

disasters, and other emergencies with the resources required to prevent, respond to, and 

recover from them.”15

— National Preparedness Goal. In compliance with HSPD-8, DHS, in coordination with 

other Federal departments and agencies, issued the Interim National Preparedness Goal in 

March, 2005 that sets forth a process for prioritizing Federal preparedness assistance (e.g. 

grants, training, exercises, planning) on the basis of risk and need to enhance their 

capabilities outlined in TCL in furtherance of national priorities. 

Evacuation Planning and Implementation Guidance 

The DHS and FEMA, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the NRC have 

respectively developed best practice evacuation guidance and recommendation documents. 

While these evacuation guidance documents and standards are voluntary and not regulatory in 

origin, they are often incorporated into State and local laws and regulations because they are 

generally accepted as industry standards or as criteria for securing emergency management grant 

funding. For example, the DHS has stipulated that all State, local, and related organizations 

seeking FY 2006 homeland security grant funding must have performed a self assessment of 

their organization’s evacuation plans, utilizing one of the standards described below, and 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-6 

participated in a peer review of their plans by former State and local emergency management and 

homeland security officials prior to receiving these funds.16

SLG 101. This guidance document from FEMA provides emergency management professionals 

and related emergency service personnel with FEMA’s concept for developing risk-based, allhazard emergency operations plans (EOPs). The SLG 101 is meant to serve as a “toolbox” of 

ideas and to advise State and local emergency management professionals in their efforts to 

develop and maintain a viable, all-hazard EOP. It is intended primarily for use by personnel 

responsible for EOP development and maintenance in State and local emergency management 

agencies. Specifically, the SLG 101 “should help the State and local emergency management 

organizations produce EOPs that: 

• Serve as the basis for effective response to any hazard that threatens the jurisdiction; 

• Facilitate integration of mitigation into response and recovery activities; and 

• Facilitate coordination with the Federal Government during catastrophic disaster situations 

that necessitate implementation of the Federal Response Plan (FRP).”17

The SLG 101 “clarifies the preparedness, response, and short-term recovery planning elements 

that warrant inclusion in State and local EOPs.”18 It offers best approaches and 

recommendations on how to deal with the entire planning process—from assembling a planning 

team to writing the plan. It also encourages emergency management professionals to address all 

of the hazards that threaten their jurisdiction in a single integrated EOP, instead of relying on 

stand-alone plans. With regard to evacuations, the SLG 101 has an integrated evacuation section 

(Attachment E: Evacuation) that provides detailed input on developing evacuation protocols 

within a State or local government EOP. In addition, sections on Mass Care and Hurricanes in 

SLG 101 provide detailed evacuation planning support. SLG 101 was published in September 

1996, and DHS plans to update it to reflect the NRP. Recommended practices for evacuation 

planning and implementation are discussed in more detail in the next chapter and are among the 

bases for evaluating current State and local evacuation plans. 

NFPA 1600 Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity 

Programs. The NFPA 1600 is designed to be a description of the basic criteria for a 

comprehensive emergency management program that addresses disaster recovery, business 

continuity, and emergency management. NFPA standards are developed through a consensus 

standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. The 

NFPA develops standards that are regularly implemented by State and local lawmakers for 

building, life safety, and electrical standards.19

NFPA 1600 also provides limited guidance on evacuation planning and support in Section 5.14.2 

“Crisis Communications and Public Information.” This section recommends that emergency 

management officials maintain a disaster and emergency public communications capability to 

communicate with the special needs population and protective action guidelines and 

recommendations to contend with shelter-in-place or evacuations. The NFPA also provides 

evacuation training and guidance material for the evacuation of people with disabilities and of 

health care facilities. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-7 

Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). EMAP is an independent 

association that publishes voluntary assessment and accreditation processes for State and local 

government emergency management programs. The EMAP Commission is the 10-member 

governing and decision-making body of EMAP. The members are appointed by the International 

Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) and National Emergency Management Association 

(NEMA). The commission functions independently of those organizations and its Emergency 

Management Accreditation process is based on compliance with collaboratively developed 

national standards for emergency preparedness. These EMAP Standards are based on the NFPA 

1600 discussed above. EMAP standards address key components of preparedness and response 

for a terrorist event or catastrophic disaster including multi-disciplinary coordination, continuity 

of operations and continuity of government planning, alternate operating facilities, and 

interoperability. 

The EMAP also includes an online assessment tool that may be used by programs to prepare for 

on-site assessments. The tool helps to determine whether current emergency management and 

preparedness programs are compliant with EMAP standards. Currently, Florida is the only Gulf 

Coast State to have received EMAP accreditation. The other Gulf Coast States have completed 

the baseline assessment, and Texas has scheduled an on-site assessment. Local emergency 

management agencies also seek accreditation, and East Baton Rouge Parish is currently under a 

conditional accreditation. 

NUREG-O654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Criteria for Preparation and Evacuation of 

Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power 

Plans. This guidance document was published by a joint NRC and FEMA Steering Committee 

in November 1980. The document’s purpose is to provide a basis for NRC licensees and State 

and local governments to develop radiological emergency operations plans and improve 

emergency preparedness.20 It provides a common reference and guidance source for FEMA, 

NRC, and other Federal department and agency personnel involved in the review of State, local, 

and licensee nuclear facility plans and preparedness. 

With regard to evacuation protocols, the original NUREG-0654 document provided a detailed 

Appendix 1 on protective actions, including evacuation protocol. NUREG-0654 was updated in 

July 1996 to provide a clear and simplified decision making process for determining protective 

actions for the public prior to and during severe nuclear reactor core damage accidents. The 

Supplement 3 guidance emphasizes evacuation as the preferred initial protective action for 

severe accidents, barring any constraints for evacuation. 

Other Federal Initiatives to Assist State and Local Government Evacuations 

HSPD-8 notes that the primary means of Federal support to State and local governments is grant 

awards. To ensure effective use of these funds, grants are generally predicated on statewide 

adoption of comprehensive all-hazards strategies. For example, HSPD-8 calls for DHS to set 

national preparedness goals and develop training programs and share lessons learned and best 

practices. Under HSPD-8, Federal agencies are directed to be prepared to support State and local 

governments in a disaster by setting goals for teams, stockpiles, and caches to support their NRP 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-8 

missions. The following lists the DHS grant programs that provide support for State and local 

evacuation programs. 

DHS Homeland Security Grant Program (HSPG).21 The FY 2006 HSGP integrates several 

DHS grant programs (i.e., the State Homeland Security Program, the Urban Areas Security 

Initiative, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, the Metropolitan Medical 

Response System, and the Citizen Corps Program). The funding supports a wide range of 

activities, including planning, training, and exercises associated with mass evacuation planning. 

Funding from HSGP is used for projects in support of the national priorities and target 

capabilities as outlined in the National Preparedness Goal. The devastating aftermath of 

Hurricane Katrina focused the Nation on the importance of emergency operations planning for 

catastrophic incidents and resulted in the addition of a priority addressing these concerns in the 

FY 06 HSGP guidance. The DHS Nationwide Plan Review currently under way is in support of 

this additional National Priority.

DHS Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG).22 The EMPG program assists 

States and urban areas in achieving the target levels of capability to sustain and enhance the 

effectiveness of their emergency management program. The EMPG program supports preincident planning for catastrophic incidents, which is essential to all of the mission areas of 

emergency management. These planning efforts include the development of comprehensive 

emergency operations plans, including annexes and appendices addressing evacuation, shelter 

and reception, logistics and resource management, and other key plan components. Additionally, 

EMPG requires that plans are consistent at the State, local, and tribal levels with NIMS to aid in 

the seamless interface among the elements. With these funds, States support emergency 

management mission areas and structure individual emergency management programs based on 

identified needs and priorities for strengthening their capabilities, while simultaneously 

addressing issues of national concern as identified both in the National Priorities and the TCL. 

States have the flexibility to develop intrastate and interstate emergency management systems 

that encourage building partnerships to include government, business, volunteer, and community 

organizations. It is essential that State and local governments coordinate and establish strong 

working relationships with neighboring jurisdictions, which may include all levels of 

government including tribal, in developing emergency management capabilities for joint 

operations and effective mutual aid and support locally, regionally, State-to-State, and 

nationwide. 

DHS Competitive Training Grant Program (CTGP).23 The CTGP provides funding for 

training initiatives that prepare the Nation to prevent, respond to, and recover from incidents of 

terrorism. The CTGP was launched in 2004 to develop specialized training to strengthen 

preparedness among first responders, public officials, and citizens. Applications for CTGP grants 

are judged according to specific criteria that stress a cross-disciplinary approach to training, 

partnerships to maximize program impact, and strong program performance measures. Other 

factors, such as the proposed program's scope and relevance to the preparedness priorities 

outlined in the National Preparedness Goal, also are considered. 

DHS Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance Program (HSPTAP).24 

HSPTAP is a capability-based program that is structured to build and sustain State and local 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-9 

capacity in priority preparedness activities. Under this vision, the technical assistance services 

developed and delivered to State and local personnel address the full spectrum of mission areas, 

national priorities, and target capabilities outlined in the National Preparedness Goal. As State 

and local agencies identify their capability gaps, the HSPTAP develops services to address those 

needs and build priority capabilities in the most critical areas. The HSPTAP is designed to 

address current areas of greatest State and local need. Its mission is to transfer and 

institutionalize knowledge at the State and local level. 

DHS Gulf Coast Hurricane Preparedness Exercise Series. The DHS Preparedness 

Directorate’s Office of Grants and Training initiated the U.S. Hurricane Preparedness Exercise 

Series after Hurricane Katrina. Five exercises are planned in 2006 and will be coordinated with 

appropriate Federal, State, territorial, and local agencies, as well as partners in the private sector, 

as appropriate. This effort facilitates the process of consolidating the lessons learned from the 

previous year’s hurricane-related, after-action reports and conferences. It also provides a forum 

to validate the revised coordination and response plans that address challenges that could arise if 

another catastrophic storm strikes during the 2006 hurricane season. 

Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). The DHS established the 

National Training Program, a National Exercise Program, and a National Lessons Learned 

Information Sharing System.25 These programs use NIMS and include the training required to 

meet the requirements in the NRP. HSEEP is included in these programs. The purpose of 

HSEEP is to provide common exercise policy and program guidance that constitutes a national 

standard for homeland security exercises. HSEEP includes consistent terminology that can be 

used by all exercise planners, regardless of the nature and composition of their sponsoring 

agency or organization. HSEEP provides tools to help exercise managers plan, conduct, and 

evaluate exercises to improve overall preparedness in a consistent manner. HSEEP reflects 

lessons learned and best practices of existing exercise programs and can be adapted to a variety 

of scenarios and incidents (e.g., natural disasters, terrorism, and technological disasters). HSEEP 

integrates language and concepts from the NRP, NIMS, the National Preparedness Goal, the 

UTL and TCL, and existing exercise programs, and prevention and response protocols from all 

levels of government.26

Hurricane Evacuation Studies (HESs). USACE, FEMA, and the National Weather Service 

(NWS) of NOAA work together to conduct detailed, technical analyses of major evacuations 

from hurricanes in the United States. HES are designed to provide emergency management 

agencies with technical data and analysis to support hurricane evacuation planning and 

implementation decisions. USACE leads the studies, and each agency contributes staff experts 

and resources. The three agencies establish a working group for each hurricane studied and 

actively encourage other local, State, and Federal agencies and NGOs such as the American Red 

Cross to participate in the studies. 

HES include modeling of storm, flood, and surge data and analyses of housing and populations, 

hazards, vulnerabilities, behavior, shelters, and transportation. The studies include projections 

and analysis on public shelter vulnerability, shelter demand and capacity, traffic control, and 

clearance time models. The studies also address interagency coordination. HES help officials 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-10 

decide issues like when and what areas to evacuate in their county, where to shelter them, and 

what routes to use. 

NOAA’s Tropical Prediction Center/National Hurricane Center (TPC/NHC). In addition to 

its participation in HES with FEMA and USACE, NOAA provides direct support to State and 

local agencies for evacuation planning and operations. The TPC/NHC, located in Miami, is a 

division of NOAA’s NWS. It provides operational real-time forecasts, watches, and warnings in 

text and graphical form for tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. 

When tropical storm or hurricane conditions are possible, the center issues the appropriate 

watches and warnings. Updates are provided at a minimum of every 6 hours. The latest 

forecasts, watches, and warnings are provided to the public via a variety of sources including the 

news media, Internet, and NOAA Weather Radio. Conference calls are also made to state and 

local officials. In partnership with FEMA, the Hurricane Liaison Team (HLT) is activated and 

resides at TPC/NHC. The HLT, managed and run by FEMA, has direct contact to federal 

agencies, FEMA regions, and state and local emergency managers. In addition to its hurricane 

monitoring and reporting, the NWS has several initiatives related to evacuations: 

• The NWS conducts service assessments to evaluate its performance during catastrophic 

weather events. Assessments are conducted when there are major economic impacts on a 

large area or population, multiple fatalities or numerous serious injuries, and/or unusually 

high levels of public or media interest. Assessment teams, composed of experts in and 

outside of the NWS, study what happened and NWS actions before, during, and after the 

event and then recommend changes in NWS procedures, products, and services to improve 

performance. Through its service assessments, the NWS continues to improve its prediction 

and information services for emergency managers, government agencies, and the public. 

• A storm surge group provides maps and models with information on storm surge predictions 

to assist State and local emergency managers in the development of evacuation procedures 

for coastal areas. 

• Local NWS Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) work directly with local emergency managers 

and state officials. They add specificity and details to the TPC/NHC information. This helps 

emergency managers and state officials in their decision making process before, during and 

after weather events. WFOs often carry evacuation information in their Hurricane Local 

Statements which receive wide distribution to the public and media. 

State and Local Roles in Evacuations 

The NRP, NIMS, and SLG 101 all recognize that State and local governments are the first line of 

emergency response in disasters, including evacuation and sheltering. State and local 

governments have fire, police, EMS, and emergency management agencies dedicated to disaster 

response. These agencies have first-hand experience and expertise in emergency management, 

and have led the development of innovative emergency management strategies. For example, in 

the 1970s, California was battling significant, fast-moving wildfires. Fire fighters were drawn 

from many jurisdictions. They found that their management structures were not compatible, and 

that they could not coordinate the massive mutual aid responses involving dozens of distinct 

agencies. As a result, an interagency task force of local, State, and Federal agency 

representatives worked collaboratively to develop the Incident Command Struture (ICS)—a 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-11 

consistent, integrated framework for the management of large, multi-agency emergencies. The 

ICS is used extensively throughout the U.S. by State and local emergency response agencies. In 

some cases, such as a hazardous materials incident in California, it is state law that the ICS be 

used to handle the situation. As discussed above, under NIMS, DHS mandated the use of ICS 

for emergency services throughout the U.S.27

The governor of a State is its chief executive and directs the State’s resources to prepare for and 

respond to a disaster. The governor encourages State and local agencies to enter into mutual aid 

agreements with other jurisdictions to share resources. The governor also commands the State’s 

National Guard forces, which may be called upon to help respond to a disaster. In emergency 

conditions, a governor usually has police powers to make, amend, and rescind orders and 

regulations. When the State’s capabilities are exhausted, the governor may request Federal 

assistance under the provisions of the Stafford Act.28

The county, parish, and city government jurisdictions in a State are given authority through State 

laws to provide local emergency preparedness and response for their jurisdictions. The city 

mayor or county or parish manager is the senior local official and directs the emergency response 

actions and resources in his or her jurisdiction. These senior officials enter into mutual-aid 

agreements with other jurisdictions to share resources and support each other in an emergency. 

When the local jurisdiction’s capabilities have been exhausted, the senior local official may 

request State assistance, and if necessary, Federal assistance through the governor.29 

State and local transportation agencies also play a significant role in evacuation planning and 

operations. The State DOT, in coordination with the highway patrol or state police, may institute 

contraflow operations to allow both sides of a limited or controlled access highway to carry 

evacuees in one direction. Operators of buses from transit agencies and school districts may be 

prepared and trained to transport evacuees without access to personal vehicles. Depending on 

conditions and backup power sources, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies, 

hand-held communication devices, portable cameras, and traffic count detectors can provide 

critical feedback on evacuation operations. Variable message signs can be deployed quickly to 

guide evacuees. Through emergency radio broadcasts, State and local transportation agencies 

can provide real-time information to evacuees and officials to facilitate the evacuation. 

Typically, large-scale evacuations are ordered at the county, parish, and city level in coordination 

with State officials. However, for major hurricanes in which a large number of jurisdictions may 

evacuate and in which evacuees may also cross State lines, State agencies have begun to 

coordinate the evacuations. The specific roles of State governments in evacuations vis-à-vis the 

counties and metropolitan areas vary somewhat from State to State. States almost always 

manage contraflow operations when necessary and are available to assist local governments in 

evacuations that exceed local capabilities. 

The State laws provide specific authority to the governors and local CEOs with regard to 

evacuation. The laws vary among the Gulf Coast States, but each includes similar provisions. In 

general, the State laws may provide: 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-12 

• State Authority 

— A governor may declare an emergency and assume extra powers and responsibilities to 

protect the health and safety of the citizens of the State. Specific powers relating to an 

evacuation include: 

 Create, amend, or rescind rules or directives to provide the necessities of life or 

supplies and equipment 

 Direct State and local law enforcement officers 

 Prescribe evacuation routes, transportation modes, and destinations 

 Control ingress and egress to the disaster area and the occupancy of premises in the 

disaster area 

— A governor may order, direct, compel, or recommend an evacuation. Different States use 

different terms, and there is some confusion by the public about when an evacuation is 

mandatory and how a mandatory evacuation would be enforced. 

— In some States, the law calls for the governor to designate an Incident Commander to 

manage the response to the disaster. 

— Under State laws, local jurisdictions are given responsibilities to protect the health and 

safety of their citizens including: 

 A local jurisdiction provides the first responders to an event in that jurisdiction 

 Most local CEOs can order an evacuation of their jurisdiction to protect the health 

and safety of their citizens 

 Some local agencies are directed to work with the State or Federal government in the 

event of a catastrophic incident 

 Cities, counties, and parishes are required to establish emergency management 

agencies 

 Local agencies are required to develop and implement emergency operations plans 

 Some local agencies are required to coordinate their emergency response plans with 

the State plan 

 Some local CEOs have delegated powers for their jurisdictions that are similar to the 

governor’s, including changing rules to provide supplies and equipment, direct State 

and local law enforcement officers, and prescribe evacuation routes and 

transportation modes. 

Many miles of highways across the country include federally owned roads serving Federal lands, 

including parkways and park roads, forest highway system roads, defense access roads, Indian 

reservation roads, and other Federal lands roads. These roads are largely the responsibility of 

Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) who own, maintain and manage these 

transportation assets. Unlike other public roads, there is no State authority for Federal lands 

roads. 

NGO Roles in Evacuations 

NGOs such as the American Red Cross and volunteer organizations such as Citizen Corps also 

play important roles in disaster response. The American Red Cross has a unique relationship 

with the Federal government in disaster response and is delegated responsibility for ESF-6, Mass 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-13 

Care. The American Red Cross was chartered by Congress in 1900 to support international and 

domestic humanitarian initiatives such as maintaining a system of domestic and international 

disaster relief, including mandated responsibilities that are now incorporated into the NRP and 

coordinated by FEMA.30 The American Red Cross receives its financial support from voluntary 

public contributions and from cost-recovery charges for some of its blood and training services. 

Under limited circumstances, the American Red Cross receives funding for certain programs 

when the funding requirements are beyond those supported by the charitable public. At times, 

Federal and State government agencies also contract with the American Red Cross and provide 

material aid and assistance to support the fulfillment of its charter obligations. 

The American Red Cross disaster relief focuses on meeting people's immediate emergency 

disaster-caused needs. When a disaster threatens or strikes, the American Red Cross provides 

shelter, food, and health and mental health services to address basic human needs. In addition to 

these services, the core of American Red Cross disaster relief is the assistance given to 

individuals and families affected by disaster to enable them to resume their normal daily 

activities independently. The American Red Cross also feeds emergency workers, handles 

inquiries from concerned family members outside the disaster area, provides blood and blood 

products to disaster victims, and helps those affected by disaster to access other available 

resources. 

The National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD) is a consortium of national 

volunteer organizations, including national and international charities and foundations, religious 

organizations, emergency response organizations, and humane societies. NVOAD coordinates 

planning efforts for many voluntary organizations responding to a disaster. When a disaster 

occurs, NVOAD or one of its State affiliates encourages members and other voluntary agencies 

to convene on site. This cooperative effort has proven to be an effective way for a wide variety 

of volunteers and organizations to work together in a crisis.31

In addition, DHS administers Citizen Corps to support citizen participation in public education 

efforts, citizen participation in training and exercises, and administration of community safety 

volunteer programs through local Citizen Corp Councils. Under the Citizen Corps umbrella, 

DHS also supports the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program, which 

educates people about disaster preparedness and trains them in basic disaster response skills such 

as fire safety, light search and rescue, and disaster medical operations. Using their training, 

CERT members can assist others in their neighborhood or workplace during an incident and can 

take a more active role in preparing their community in coordination with their local first 

responders.32 Both NVOAD and the American Red Cross are Citizen Corps Affiliates. 

Federal Roles in Evacuations 

In a catastrophic incident, State and local emergency resources would be overwhelmed and the 

Federal government, as described above under the NRP, would join the affected States to 

immediately deploy essential Federal resources and acquire State or private sector resources 

from outside the area to help meet evacuation needs. HSPD-5 states: 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-14 

The Federal Government recognizes the roles and responsibilities of State and 

local authorities in domestic incident management. Initial responsibility for 

managing domestic incidents generally falls on State and local authorities. The 

Federal government will assist State and local authorities when their resources are 

overwhelmed, or when Federal interests are involved. The Secretary (of DHS) 

will coordinate with State and local governments to ensure adequate planning, 

equipment, training, and exercise activities. The Secretary will also provide 

assistance to State and local governments to develop all-hazards plans and 

capabilities, including those of greatest importance to the security of the United 

States, and will ensure that State, local, and Federal plans are compatible.33

The NRP established a process for managing information flow and decision making for local, 

State, and Federal level emergency response agencies and first responders in the field for mass 

evacuations from a catastrophic incident. The NRP and supporting documents such as NIMS 

and SLG 101 define the command structures and include delineation of responsibilities and State 

statutory authorities. The NRP also describes the roles and coordination of the President and the 

Secretary of DHS, and the leadership of the involved Federal agencies in managing the Federal 

response to an incident. In the field, systems are established to coordinate local, State, and 

Federal response at regional and local levels. The command structure described in NIMS and 

NRP are flexible and scaleable and meant to be tailored to the specific requirements of a 

catastrophic incident. 

In a mass evacuation from a catastrophic incident, the local public safety and emergency 

response agencies are generally the first on the scene and initiate the evacuation. A catastrophic 

incident triggers the mobilization of State and then Federal resources to respond. The following 

lists show the major components of the command structure for the State and local level response 

and for the Federal level for transportation. Appendix H of this report includes a description of 

each of these components. In addition to this command structure, when the Secretary of Defense 

authorizes Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) for domestic incidents, the Department 

of Defense (DOD) retains command of military forces under DSCA and coordinates its activities 

with the Unified Area Command Structure. 

Major components of the State command structure include: 

• Governor 

• Tribal Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 

• State Emergency Operations Center (EOC) 

• State Coordinating Officer (SCO) 

• Unified Area Command Structure 

• State Emergency Management Agency 

• Local Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 

• Law Enforcement Agencies (State and local) 

 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-15 

Major components of the command structure for the Federal level response for transportation 

include: 

• Homeland Security Council (HSC) 

• Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) 

• Interagency Advisory Committee 

• National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) 

• Regional Response Coordination Center (RRCC) 

• Joint Field Office (JFO) 

• Principal Federal Officer (PFO) 

• Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) 

• Federal Resource Coordinator (FRC) 

• Senior Federal Law Enforcement Official (SFLEO) 

• Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) 

• Emergency Support Function (ESF) Coordinator 

• Emergency Support Function #1 (Transportation) 

• Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response (OST/S-60) 

• Crisis Management Center 

- DOT Modal Representatives/Subject Matter Experts 

• Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinator (RETCO) 

- Regional Emergency Transportation Representative (RETREP) 

- DOT Emergency Coordinators (EC) 

U.S. DOT Roles, Programs, and Initiatives to Support 

Evacuations 

This section summarizes the U.S. DOT’s responsibilities to coordinate ESF-1, identifies ESF-1 

support agencies, and describes the activities of the Department and the transportation industry in 

the evacuations for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Under the National Response Plan, DOT is the Primary and Coordinating Agency for ESF-1. 

The National Response Plan also identifies the following ten entities as ESF-1 Support Agencies: 

the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, 

Justice and State, as well as the General Services Administration and the U.S. Postal Service. 

ESF-1 is designed to provide transportation support to assist in domestic incident management. 

Activities within the scope of ESF #1 include: 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-16 

1. Processing and coordinating requests for Federal and civil transportation support as directed 

under the National Response Plan (NRP) 

2. Reporting damage to transportation infrastructure as a result of the incident 

3. Coordinating alternate transportation services 

4. Coordinating the restoration and recovery of the transportation infrastructure 

5. Performing activities conducted under the direct authority of DOT elements such as air, 

maritime, surface, rail, and pipelines 

6. Coordinating and supporting prevention/preparedness/mitigation among transportation 

infrastructure stakeholders at the state and local level. 

Specifically related to evacuations, the National Response Plan states that ESF-1: 

Provides technical assistance to Federal, State, local, and tribal governmental 

entities in evacuation or movement restriction planning, and determining the most 

viable transportation networks to, from, and within the incident area, as well as 

alternative means to move people and goods within the area affected by the 

incident.34 

Coordinates and implements, as required, emergency-related response and 

recovery functions performed under DOT statutory authorities, including the 

prioritization and/or allocation of civil transportation capacity, ...to include 

safety- and security-related actions concerning movement restrictions, closures, 

quarantines, and evacuations.35

Other ESF-1 responsibilities that relate directly to evacuation include coordinating the provision 

of Federal and private transportation services to support State and local governments; providing 

staffing and liaisons for ESF-1 functions in headquarters, region, and local emergency facilities; 

and managing the financial aspects of emergency transportation services. 

The U.S. DOT’s ESF-1 responsibilities are managed and coordinated by the Office of 

Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response within the OST. During an incident, the 

Secretary surges the Department’s Emergency Response Team through its 24/7 Crisis 

Management Center, activates Emergency Coordinators in the various modal administrations 

(e.g., Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Railroad 

Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

and Maritime Administration), and deploys field staff to support local, state, and regional 

response under the frame work of the National Response Plan. 

U.S. DOT Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and Preparations for 

2006 Hurricane Season 

The U.S. DOT, with its operating administrations, faced many challenges with hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita. A key challenge faced during Hurricane Katrina evacuations was the ability to 

obtain the desired number of buses, trains and aircraft. The Department of Defense was assigned 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-17 

the task of providing the command, control and communications for the evacuation of New 

Orleans. 

While the systems, plans, and training that the U.S. DOT had in place generally worked well, 

they were not sufficient for disasters the size of Hurricane Katrina. The U.S. DOT is working to 

further institutionalize ESF-1 program needs within its operations and to improve the 

understanding of chain of command, roles, responsibilities, and needed coordination. 

Telecommunications systems, including satellite phone, failed, and it was difficult to obtain 

information on the status and needs for the post-event evacuation. Communications and 

coordination with FEMA staff were also difficult, and authorities were unclear. 

Because there had been little advance planning and intergovernmental communication for mass 

evacuations by other than private vehicles, officials on the scene were sometimes unable to 

assemble or stage significant numbers of evacuees to use vehicles provided to some areas. Some 

trains and buses left the area with very few passengers. The evacuation problems were 

compounded by the lack of communication with buses and local officials. 

While the U.S. DOT’s role was to provide transportation equipment and services for the 

evacuation to meet its mission, the Department provided assistance to other Departments, 

agencies, and ESFs in helping to identify staging areas and pick-up times; find destination 

shelters for evacuees; and provide security on some evacuation vehicles. 

More DOT experiences and initiatives following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are described for 

the following specific areas. 

 

Highway. In response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FHWA staff from headquarters, 

division, metropolitan, and resource center offices provided personnel support at ESF-1 and 

other offices throughout the response network. The FHWA EC in each affected state 

provided highway infrastructure situational awareness information. The ELT facilitated prelandfall evacuation and contraflow operations throughout the region and supported the postlandfall evacuation operations in New Orleans post-landfall. Using its Emergency Relief 

Program funding authority, FHWA provided debris removal and emergency repair funding. 

FHWA subject matter experts provided technical assistance and subject matter expertise to 

State DOTs to facilitate the speedy design of temporary repairs. 

To prepare for the 2006 hurricane season and to enhance overall preparedness, FHWA is 

currently developing a series of primers to assist State and local emergency response and 

transportation agencies in planning for evacuations. These documents will be widely 

distributed and will also serve as training material for a series of regional workshops. 

Intelligent Transportation Systems. The ITS Joint Program Office (JPO) of DOT supports 

the development of advanced technologies to improve the safety and efficiency of 

transportation systems. A major initiative addressing emergency transportation operations is 

now being revised to better focus on the development and application of ITS technologies to 

improve evacuation planning, monitoring, and implementation. It is expected that the 

revised initiative will improve the information available to travelers as well as decisionmakers engaged in evacuations. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-18 

Buses. During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FMCSA functioned as a clearinghouse of 

information for truck and bus companies in obtaining necessary authorizations to operate 

under emergency conditions. In working with the motor carrier industry assisting with 

evacuations for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the FMCSA established a single point of 

contact (POC) that was supported by a technical advisory team. In connection with 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the FTA worked in partnership with the American Public 

Transportation Association (APTA) to identify buses, mechanics, and volunteer drivers from 

transit agencies across the country who could assist in the evacuation. APTA worked with 

FTA to determine how support from the transit industry could be provided and served as 

an industry liaison to the federal government. 

The U.S. DOT has an inventory of over 4,000 companies, with over 100,000 buses 

nationwide, which is available for use by its national contractor, Landstar. This includes 

fixed route motor coaches, tour bus operators, and school buses that are available for charter. 

The U.S. DOT is working with the American Bus Association to further index capabilities 

including wheel chair compatibility, and number of evacuation-ready vehicles and drivers. 

Agreements are also being developed with bus operators for standardized rates and terms for 

evacuation assistance. These actions will allow the U.S. DOT to quickly acquire assets and 

support the dispatch, command, and control of those assets. The U.S. DOT is working with 

APTA to rapidly access surge capacity from nearby public transportation assets, including 

both buses and special needs vehicles, to support evacuations. APTA has formed the APTA 

Emergency Preparedness Task Force to develop strategies to improve the working 

relationship and coordination with the governments at all levels in emergency response 

Transit. During the evacuations and response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FTA 

staff was deployed to the CMC to provide support for ESF-1 functions. FTA also 

worked in partnership with APTA to identify buses, mechanics, and volunteer drivers 

from transit agencies across the country. APTA worked with FTA to determine how 

support from the transit industry could be provided and served as an industry liaison 

to the federal government. Since Hurricane Katrina, APTA has formed the APTA 

Emergency Preparedness Task Force to develop strategies to improve the working 

relationship and coordination with the governments at all levels in emergency 

response. In September 2005, FTA posted “Hurricane Katrina Information for FTA 

Grantees” on its internal Web site available to its grantees. This information package 

provides guidance on FTA funding and regulations affecting hurricane response and 

recovery. 

Aircraft. The FAA worked closely with the DHS (including FEMA and TSA), DOD, and 

other Federal, State, and local partners, as well as private sector air operators to quickly 

restore air transportation to the Gulf Coast region needed to support the post-landfall 

evacuation of the New Orleans area. Under the extremely difficult conditions after Hurricane 

Katrina, the FAA was able to quickly restore critical air navigation services in the damaged 

areas, giving priority to airports (e.g., Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport) 

and services needed to support evacuation flights and other critical relief missions. The 

agency, in coordination with its partners, also rapidly implemented airspace and other air 

traffic operations measures. In addition, the FAA temporarily eased regulatory restrictions 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 2-19 

on the maximum flight hours for crews involved in the air evacuations to assist carriers in 

their scheduling requirements. 

To prepare for the 2006 hurricane season, the U.S. DOT is working with the Air Transport 

Association (ATA) and its members to ensure that passenger aircraft can be obtained faster 

and used more efficiently. This includes airlines moving in support equipment, ground 

crews, and other people and equipment that a damaged airport (like Louis Armstrong 

International during Katrina) may not be able to provide. A registry, similar to the one 

described above for buses, is being developed in conjunction with the Helicopter Association 

International, which represents helicopter owners and operators across the nation. 

Passenger Rail. In response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) staffed the CMC and FEMA regional emergency operations centers 

and worked with Amtrak, commuter trains, and freight railroads who were deployed to 

support emergency response. Trains were used to move some evacuees out of the region and 

to transport heavy equipment, supplies, and relief equipment into the area. A challenge was 

faced with staging evacuees for passenger rail services offered by Amtrak , due to the lack of 

communication, coordination, and prior planning among local, State, and Federal officials. 

Assistance offered by Amtrak prior to the landfall of Hurricane Katrina was not accepted and 

resulted in a train with 900 seats (7 locomotives and 20 cars) leaving prior to the storm. 

To prepare for the 2006 hurricane season, the FRA is now working with Amtrak to preidentify trains, routes, and stations ahead of landfall in the event passenger rail is needed for 

evacuations. 

Marine. Ten MARAD ships in its RRF were activated to aid in the response and recovery to 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Through the ESF-1 program, the U.S. DOT and MARAD 

coordinated with FEMA on the availability and capacity of the ships. The activation of these 

ships for a domestic emergency was unprecedented and provided the Gulf Coast with 

supplies, water, electricity, and food and shelter for rescue and recovery workers. In 

preparation for Hurricane Rita, MARAD ships were stationed as shelters for equipment and 

emergency responders prior to the hurricane to support post-storm evacuations and recovery 

activities. The ships sheltered police dogs, emergency equipment, and personnel from six 

jurisdictions. The ships allowed emergency personnel and equipment to be sheltered during 

the storm so that they could be rapidly deployed for post-event evacuations and emergency 

response. 

Future Evacuation Roles for the U.S. DOT 

Improved coordination with State and local agencies, transportation providers, sheltering 

agencies, and others that has begun in 2006 will continue in subsequent years as will technical 

assistance and coordination with DHS and others on regional exercises. These activities will 

better enable State and local agencies to conduct mass evacuations without having to call on 

Federal resources, and when Federal resources are needed in connection with a catastrophic 

incident, will better prepare all involved to efficiently and effectively coordinate required 

evacuation activities. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 3-1 

Section 10204 of SAFETEA-LU and the FY 

2006 Department of Transportation 

Appropriations Act 

1. All safe and practical modes of 

transportation available for evacuations. 

2. The extent to which evacuation plans are 

coordinated with neighboring States and 

adjoining jurisdictions. 

3. Methods of communicating evacuation 

plans and preparing citizens in advance of 

evacuations. 

4. Methods of coordinating communication 

with evacuees during plan execution. 

5. The availability of food, water, restrooms, 

fueling stations, and shelter opportunities 

along the evacuation routes. 

6. The time required to evacuate under the 

plan. 

7. The physical and mental strains associated 

with the evacuation. 

8. The extent to which the evacuation plans 

are coordinated with the point receiving the 

evacuated personnel.

Figure 3-1: Congressional Criteria 

Chapter 3: Evacuation Plan Assessment Methodology 

This chapter describes the U.S. DOT’s study methods used to evaluate the local, State, and 

Federal plans for evacuations related to hurricanes or other catastrophic incidents in the Gulf 

Coast region. The U.S. DOT, in coordination with the DHS, collected and evaluated information 

from State and local plans; held discussions with State and local emergency management, 

transportation, and law enforcement officials; conducted a review of literature and research on 

mass evacuations; and vetted concepts with representatives of transportation associations. The 

U.S. DOT also evaluated its own response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and incorporated these 

findings with the results of the State and local assessments to develop lessons learned, best 

practices, and findings and recommendations for this report. 

Section 10204 of the SAFETEA-LU and the FY 

2006 DOT Appropriations Act included specific 

factors that were a part of this evaluation, such 

as the potential modes of transportation in 

evacuations, coordination with neighboring 

jurisdictions, and communications before and 

during evacuations. Figure 3-1 lists the eight 

factors identified in the legislation. The U.S. 

DOT added other factors to develop a 

comprehensive view of mass evacuation 

planning in the region. These factors are 

discussed in more detail below. 

The objective of the evaluation was to assess the 

status of evacuation planning processes in the 

Gulf Coast region to determine how well they 

address the various aspects of evacuation 

planning and operations, the constraints that 

State and local jurisdictions face in preparing 

and implementing evacuation plans, and actions 

that could be taken to improve evacuation 

capabilities. The purpose of the evaluation was 

not to grade the individual local and State plans, 

but rather to assess and gather information from 

those plans that will help local, State, and 

Federal agencies improve their evacuation processes in the future. 

The study was led by a U.S. DOT team of representatives from the Office of the Secretary 

(OST), FHWA, FTA, FRA, FAA, and FMCSA, with assistance from a consultant team. The 

U.S. DOT also sought comments on the criteria from representatives of a number of its key 

partners and stakeholder agencies and associations. These included AASHTO, APTA, the 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 3-2 

American Trucking Associations, American Association of Railroads (AAR), American Bus 

Association (ABA), Amtrak and the National Council on Disability. 

Scope of the Plan Evaluation 

Hurricane evacuation plans are prepared at various levels of government including State, county, 

and municipal, and may be prepared by a variety of agencies ranging from a State DOT, to a 

State emergency management agency, to a municipal public works agency, or even to a State 

highway patrol agency. For the evaluation of the adequacy of State and local evacuation plans, 

the U.S. DOT collected and assessed the plans from various agencies within a State, as well as 

neighboring jurisdictions that were involved, and assessed how the agencies coordinated their 

plans across geographic and political boundaries. 

Figure 3-2: States Included in Assessment 

The review included the State and local jurisdictions in the Gulf Coast region that were involved 

in major hurricane evacuations (i.e., the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Texas). The State and local evaluation reviewed plans for moving people away from areas 

threatened by catastrophic incidents and for accepting evacuees from other areas, including 

emergency evacuation plans that were available from State, county, and parish emergency 

management agencies. The U.S. DOT reviewed evacuation plans for coastal counties and the 

adjacent counties along the Gulf Coast and many of the counties of Florida. In addition, the 

evaluation included an assessment of sheltering plans for the States of Arkansas, Georgia, 

Oklahoma, and Tennessee, because these states may be among those to receive large numbers of 

evacuees from a catastrophic hurricane. Figure 3-2 shows the States included in the assessments. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 3-3 

The U.S. DOT requested copies of the evacuation plans through three means: 

1. The DHS Nationwide Plan Review 

2. The Secretary of Transportation's letter to the Governors (see Appendix A) 

3. Direct contact with State and local emergency managers and transportation officials. 

The U.S. DOT also consulted with the State emergency management agencies to validate that the 

plans provided included all relevant plans available in each State. While the U.S. DOT did not 

receive evacuation plans from every jurisdiction in time for the study, the Department collected 

and assessed evacuation plans from 63 jurisdictions in the Gulf Coast region. This included 

plans from each of the 5 Gulf Coast States and 58 plans from county and parish jurisdictions 

from Florida and the coastal counties of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The set of 

collected plans provided a representative base from which to assess the overall adequacy of 

evacuation planning for those areas in the Gulf Coast region with the greatest threat of 

catastrophic hurricanes. Appendix B lists the jurisdictions and agencies included in the 

assessment of the 5 Gulf Coast States. 

Coordination with DHS Study 

The U.S. DOT and DHS worked together to coordinate the U.S. DOT study of mass evacuation 

planning for the Gulf Coast region and the DHS nationwide review of catastrophic emergency 

operations plans. The U.S. DOT and DHS coordinated the methodologies, criteria, and 

assessment tools for each study. The U.S. DOT and DHS study teams coordinated site visits and 

discussed feedback and results and findings and 

recommendations from the site visits. 

Although the U.S. DOT and DHS studies are related, 

the scope and focus of the two are different. The 

DHS study assessed the overall emergency operations 

plans for catastrophic incidents for States, territories, 

and large urban areas nationwide. The U.S. DOT 

study focused on mass evacuation planning elements 

for States, counties, and parishes in the Gulf Coast 

region. Evacuation plans are generally a subset of or 

an annex to overall emergency operations plans. 

Methodology 

To meet the Congressional requirements for this study 

and assess the range of factors included in effectively 

planning and executing a mass evacuation, the U.S. DOT developed a systematic, analytical 

process to evaluate the readiness and adequacy of State and local jurisdictions to move people in 

the Gulf Coast region away from catastrophic incidents and to safe shelter. The U.S. DOT’s 

methodology included identifying the major components of a comprehensive evacuation 

planning and implementation program, collecting current practices and information on 

evacuations, developing criteria to evaluate current plans, conducting on-site discussions with 

1. Identify Key Elements of Evacuation 

Planning and Implementation 

2. Review Current Evacuation Practices 

a. Review Existing Guidance 

b. Conduct Literature Review 

c. Analyze Costs 

3. Develop Plan Evaluation Criteria 

4. Assess Plans and Conduct Site Visits 

5. Identify Lessons Learned and Best 

Practices 

6. Develop Findings and 

Recommendations 

Figure 3-3: DOT Study Process 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 3-4 

Key Elements to Plan and Execute 

a Mass Evacuation from 

Catastrophic Events 

1. Decision Making and Management 

2. Planning 

3. Public Communication and 

Preparedness 

4. Evacuation of People with Special 

Needs 

5. Operations 

6. Shelter Considerations 

7. Training and Exercises 

Figure 3-4: Key Elements

State and local emergency management officials, assessing the plans, identifying lessons learned 

and best practices from recent evacuations, and developing findings and recommendations to 

improve mass evacuation planning in the Gulf Coast region and nationwide. Figure 3-3 

highlights the study process. 

Identify Key Elements of Evacuation Planning and Implementation 

The body of the report is been organized by the key 

elements related to mass evacuation planning and 

operations for catastrophic incidents. These 

elements are major categories of activities or 

functions that local, State, and Federal emergency 

management agencies would conduct to plan and 

execute a mass evacuation. Figure 3-4 shows the 

seven key elements of mass evacuation planning 

and operations. 

Review Current Evacuation Practices 

To establish the current framework that guides 

evacuation planning and implementation, the U.S. 

DOT collected and reviewed guidance, literature 

and research, cost data, and other information on 

evacuations. 

• Review Existing Guidance: The U.S. DOT reviewed the current guidance for local, State, 

and Federal agencies regarding evacuations. This included the more recent NRP and NIMS 

from DHS as well as SLG 101, NFPA 1600, and NRC evacuation guidance that has been 

used for a number of years. These documents provide the framework, guidance, and 

considerations used by agencies throughout the government as well as NGOs such as the 

American Red Cross to prepare for and implement a mass evacuation. This guidance is 

discussed earlier in this report. 

• Conduct Literature Review: The literature review provided additional information to guide 

the methodology and evaluation criteria for the study. The U.S. DOT collected relevant 

domestic and international evacuation reference materials, plans, policies, procedures, 

newspaper and magazine articles, journals, industry publications, and other documents. It 

reviewed and analyzed the documents and compiled the results into a bibliography. The 

literature review also identified lessons learned and best practices from after-action reports 

and case studies. 

The literature review addressed both anecdotal information and documented assessments of 

hurricane evacuation experiences, lessons learned, and guidance for transportation, public 

safety, and emergency management agencies that may have been developed following 

evacuation events. It collected documentation on pre-event public information campaigns 

that agencies implement to inform the public of evacuation routes and procedures and to 

manage public expectations. The review also included documents related to both rural and 

urban situations. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 3-5 

• Analyze Cost: The purpose of the cost analysis was to examine the cost of mass evacuation 

plans in the Gulf Coast region. The cost analysis was used to identify and define the costs 

associated with and incurred in mass evacuation plans. Very little data are available on the 

costs of developing and implementing evacuation plans, and the limited cost information 

received for this study is incomplete. State officials noted that determining the amount of 

funding allocated and spent for evacuation planning would be difficult since funding comes 

from many sources at the local, State, and Federal level and many agencies within the 

various levels of government have agencies involved in evacuation planning. Information 

from the Gulf Coast States on the costs of evacuation is provided in Chapter IV, the Planning 

Key Element section, later in this report. 

Develop Plan Evaluation Criteria 

The U.S. DOT developed evaluation criteria that focus on local and State actions necessary to 

plan for and implement a mass evacuation. These actions include written policy directives; 

coordination of planning processes; and provisions made to communicate information to 

evacuees before, during, and after evacuation. The criteria were used for the detailed review of 

individual written evacuation planning documents from the jurisdictions in the Gulf Coast 

region. The criteria were also reviewed and validated during the discussions with the State and 

local officials during the site visits. 

The U.S. DOT developed the evaluation criteria from information gathered from current Federal 

guidance on evacuation planning and operations as well as recent questions raised after the 

evacuations for the catastrophic hurricanes in 2005. Specifically, questions used to evaluate 

plans were drawn from: 

• FEMA SLG 101: Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning 

• HSPD-5: Management of Domestic Incidents 

• NIMS 

• NRP, Volunteer and Donations Management Support Annex. 

• SAFETEA-LU 

• FY 2006 DOT Appropriations Act 

• Findings from recent government reports including the White House, House of 

Representatives, and GAO reports and the Task Force Report to the Texas Governor on the 

Hurricane Katrina response. 

Table 3-1 lists the 20 general questions developed by the U.S. DOT to evaluate evacuation plans 

for this study. For each of the questions, a list of attributes (stated as questions) was developed 

to define and support the parameters of each question. For example, within the category of 

communicating evacuation considerations, one of the questions is: “Does the plan describe the 

provisions and methods for alerting citizens that evacuation may be necessary?” Within this 

general question, several more specific questions were used to evaluate the plan (e.g., Does the 

plan identify contingency plans to use if normal means of public communications are 

unavailable? Does the plan include provisions for communicating with special needs evacuees 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 3-6 

such as hearing, vision, and physically impaired?). Appendix E provides the detailed list of 

questions used to evaluate State and local evacuation plans. 

Each attribute was also characterized into two distinct categories—essential and non-essential. 

Essential means that if the attribute were not addressed in the plan, executing key aspects of the 

evacuation would at risk. Non-essential means that failure to address the attribute could impair 

execution of the plan but would not be expected to cause key aspects of an evacuation to fail. 

These two categories were used to weigh individual attributes and prioritize activities.. 

Table 3-1: General Evaluation Questions 

Plan Evaluation Questions for Mass Evacuation from Catastrophic Incidents

Decision Making and Management 

D1 Does the plan describe direction and control with respect to catastrophic evacuation? 

D2 Does the plan describe the provisions needed to execute a large-scale evacuation? 

Planning

P1 Does the plan address evacuation planning considerations (e.g., decision making, 

communications, available transportation modes, special needs, and sheltering) with 

regard to catastrophic hurricanes and other catastrophic events? 

P2 Does the plan require organizations to prepare standard operating procedures that 

contain the detailed instructions that responsible individuals need to follow to 

accomplish assigned tasks? 

P3 Does the plan include provisions for returning evacuees to their homes? 

Public Communication and Preparedness 

C1 Does the plan describe the provisions and methods for alerting citizens that 

evacuation may be necessary? 

C2 Does the plan identify what will be done to keep evacuees informed during evacuation 

to reduce their level of mental and physical stress? 

C3 Does the plan describe the means the government will use to keep evacuees and the 

public informed on the specific actions they should take after the evacuation has 

started? 

Evacuation of People with Special Needs 

N1 Does the plan describe provisions for evacuating special needs populations including 

those in assisted living facilities, hospitals, and those living independently (e.g., 

people with physical, mental, cognitive, and developmental disabilities)? 

N2 Does the plan describe provisions for evacuating other special needs populations 

(e.g., people in schools, day centers, mobile home parks, prisons, and detention 

centers, as well as, people that do not speak English or who are tourists, seasonal 

workers, or homeless)? 

Operations 

O1 Does the plan describe the safe and practical transportation modes that will be 

available to move evacuees that cannot transport themselves (other than special 

needs populations)? 

O2 Does the plan include provisions to ensure availability of public and private transport 

modes and necessary transport operators? 

O3 Does the plan identify evacuation routes? 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 3-7 

Plan Evaluation Questions for Mass Evacuation from Catastrophic Incidents

O4 Does the plan address the use of contraflow measures? 

Sheltering Considerations 

S1 Does the plan require the establishment of mutual aid agreements with other 

jurisdictions to formalize access to and use of shelters? 

S2 Does the plan include provisions for informing shelter operators and evacuees about 

the locations of public shelters outside of the evacuation area and their status (e.g., 

full, accepting evacuees, accepting evacuees with pets, special needs shelters, etc.)? 

S3 Does the plan address strategies and responsibilities for shelter operations? 

S4 Does the plan include provisions for the care and protection of animals? 

Training and Exercises 

T1 Does the plan include provisions for training a volunteer cadre to support shelter 

management operations, transport of evacuees, and first aid stations along the 

evacuation routes, etc.? 

T2 Does the plan require periodic reviews and updates of the plan, exercises and/or 

drills, and after-action reports as part of the planning process? 

Evaluation of Written Plans 

Evacuation planning and operations is a complex process that involves many emergency 

operation functions. Evacuation plans are generally included in a "family of plans." This means 

that evacuation plans are often components of the all-hazard emergency response plans 

developed by State and local governments. Requirements relating to evacuation planning are 

generally addressed in several parts of the plan, rather than only in an evacuation section. 

Evacuation plans are included in the basic plan, direction and control, evacuation, emergency 

public information, resource management, and mass care or the ESF annexes in the emergency 

response plan. In some jurisdictions, stand-alone hurricane evacuation plans have been prepared. 

Whether a single plan or a family of plans, these are the primary documents that governments 

rely on to detail what they will do in catastrophic incidents that warrant mass evacuations. 

For this study, the U.S. DOT assembled and assessed these families of plans relating to 

evacuations for the Gulf Coast jurisdictions to determine how they address the evacuation 

planning and operational questions developed for this evaluation. The study also assessed how 

the jurisdictions’ plans coordinated with their neighboring jurisdictions and then how all of the 

jurisdictions in the Gulf Coast region coordinate together to prepare for catastrophic hurricanes. 

This included assessment of the plans of the neighboring “host” states (i.e., Arkansas, Georgia, 

Oklahoma, and Tennessee) for sheltering evacuees from the Gulf Coast region. 

Figure 3-5 illustrates how the study methodology starts with the assessment of individual plans 

and then assesses and compares the family of plans that include the individual plan. The 

evaluation then assesses the coordination with neighboring jurisdictions. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 3-8 

Figure 3-5: Study Methodology for Assessment of Individual Plans 

The individual plan assessments included three steps: 

Step 1: The first step is a detailed assessment of how a given plan addresses individual 

attributes for each of the 20 general evaluation questions: 

• Each attribute is scored on a scale of 0 to 3. 

0 = the attribute was not addressed in the plan 

1 = the attribute was only partially addressed in the plan 

2 = the attribute was completely addressed in the plan 

3 = the plan exceeds the requirements of the attribute, and is a potential best practice. 

 

Step 2: The second step is to score the degree to which the plan fulfills each general evaluation 

question. 

• The attributes are sorted into essential and non-essential categories. 

• The scores for each attribute from Step 1 are converted into weighted scores, using different 

weights for essential and non-essential attributes. 

The weighted scores for all attributes are added and divided by the total of their weights, to 

determine the average weighted score for each question. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 3-9 

Step 3: The final step is to roll-up the average weighted scores from all of the plans for each 

general question. Based on the cumulative score, each question is then given a rating, based on 

the levels described in Table 3-2. 

Table 3-2: Evaluation Ratings 

Rank Cumulative Score Description Representation 

4 1.51 – 2.00 Very Effective h

3 1.01 – 1.50 Effective a

2 0.51 – 1.00 Partially Effective R

1 0.00 – 0.50 Marginally Effective v

Conduct Site Visits 

A key step in the U.S. DOT’s study methodology was the on-site discussions with key State and 

local emergency management, transportation, law enforcement, and non-governmental 

organization officials. In these meetings, the U.S. DOT discussed and validated the initial results 

from the evaluation of the written evacuation plans. Written State and local plans did not contain 

all of the information needed to assess key issues pertaining to evacuation plans. For example, 

plans do not usually include the cost of implementing the plans, constraints on what can be 

included in the plans, and recommendations for actions to improve State and local evacuation 

capabilities beyond the scope of the plan. 

The U.S. DOT conducted one visit in each State, and coordinated whenever possible with the 

DHS staff conducting the on-site peer reviews for Phase II of the DHS Nationwide Plan Review. 

The U.S. DOT was also able to participate in some of the DHS meetings, and its objectives for 

each meeting included: 

• Review and validate the evaluation questions developed for the review 

• Discuss any remaining questions from the review of State and local written evacuation plans 

• Identify any other documents that may be available that further elaborate on key aspects of 

evacuation plans and generally confirm how key components of evacuation plans are handled 

• Discuss costs of planning and implementing the plans with State and local officials and 

identify the extent to which costs are a significant constraint on evacuation planning and 

execution 

• Discuss any other constraints that State and local officials identified as affecting their ability 

to effectively plan and execute evacuations 

• Discuss actions that State and local officials believed could improve their ability to plan and 

conduct evacuations 

• Discuss initial best practices and lessons learned from the literature review and identify 

potential additional best practices 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 3-10 

• Discuss any updates to evacuation plans that may be underway or planned and the nature of 

changes expected in those updates 

• Vet initial findings and recommendations with subject matter experts at the State and local 

level to clarify and refine the assessment. 

The on-site meetings were a valuable source of additional information and provided a more 

comprehensive picture of the status of mass evacuation planning and operations in the region. 

The attendees at the State and local meetings were experts in evacuation planning and 

operations. Many had years of first-hand experience managing evacuations under very difficult 

conditions. Their knowledge, expertise, and experience were invaluable to this study. The U.S. 

DOT prepared a summary of each State visit, and a group of separate reports documents the 

constraints, recommendations, and best practices. Appendix D includes a list of the State and 

local agencies that participated in the on-site meetings. 

Identify Lessons Learned and Best Practices 

From the literature review, the U.S. DOT identified a 

number of lessons learned and best practices. These 

lessons learned and best practices were discussed with the 

participants in the State visits and coordinated with the 

partners and stakeholders to help identify the highest 

priority issues. Lessons learned identify gaps, mistakes, or 

problems encountered that can or should be fixed. A best 

practice is an effective practice that can be replicated in 

other jurisdictions. It is typically based on an actual event, 

so that it has been proven effective in the field. 

After-action reports are prepared after drills and exercises 

and major events. The reports summarize the events and 

identify what did and did not perform efficiently and effectively. Emergency responders use this 

analysis of their capabilities to continually improve their plans and processes. The U.S. DOT 

evaluated a number of after-action reports from the 2005 hurricane season to glean lessons 

learned that would have broad applicability for jurisdictions in the Gulf Coast region. 

Exercises test emergency response capabilities and the performance and skills of the agencies 

and individuals. Sometimes, exercises and drills are designed to severely strain the current 

capabilities of the emergency response agencies to the point of failure to help identify potential 

gaps and weaknesses and ways to improve plans, operations, and training. These types of 

challenging exercises provide valuable lessons learned. Likewise, actual events provide insights 

into the capabilities and needs of emergency responders. 

The identified lessons learned and corrective actions will be shared with the DHS Lessons 

Learned Information Sharing portal, and Corrective Action Program associated with the DHS 

National Exercise Program, to ensure that they influence ongoing Federal, State, and local 

government preparedness programs and planning activities. 

Lessons Learned 

and Best Practices 

 Lessons Learned identify gaps, 

mistakes, or problems 

encountered that can or should 

be fixed. 

 Best Practices are effective 

means that can be replicated in 

other jurisdictions. They are 

typically based on actual events 

and have been proven effective 

in the field. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 3-11 

In addition, the U.S. DOT’s study benefited from several other recent governmental reviews on 

emergency response to Hurricane Katrina. This included the Final Report of the Select 

Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina by 

the U.S. House of Representatives; The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons 

Learned from the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; the 

Governors Task Force on Evacuation, Transportation, and Logistics in Texas; and several 

reports by the GAO. These studies identified a number of lessons learned that were useful for 

this study. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-1 

Chapter 4: State and Local 

Evacuation Plan Assessment 

This chapter describes the results of the U.S. DOT’s evaluation and assessment of the current 

State and local evacuation plans and operations in the Gulf Coast region. The U.S. DOT 

reviewed evacuation plans from each of the 5 Gulf Coast States (Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, 

Louisiana, and Texas) and 58 of the counties and parishes in these States. The assessment used a 

systematic, structured process to review the plans based on 20 questions concerning seven key 

elements of mass evacuation planning and operations. These elements are major types of 

activities or functions that Federal, State, and local emergency management agencies would 

conduct to plan and execute a mass evacuation. The development of the questions is discussed 

in Chapter III of this report. 

The U.S. DOT’s assessment identified the overall strengths and weaknesses of evacuation plans 

in the Gulf Coast region. The assessment provides a basis for Federal, State, and local 

governments to focus program enhancements in those areas most in need of improvements. The 

purpose of the assessment was not to rank plans for individual State and local jurisdictions, but 

to assess the overall status of evacuation planning in the region. 

Figure 4-1 illustrates the overall status of evacuation plans in the Gulf Coast region, with respect 

to the seven key elements and the 20 questions that were assessed as part of this evaluation. The 

total scores for each question are averaged among the 63 State, county, and parish plans that 

were reviewed by the U.S. DOT. The purpose is to identify the areas where the plans are 

strongest and weakest. The assessment scores provide a benchmark for emergency managers 

and highlight areas that need to be enhanced and areas that are highly effective. 

It is important to remember that this assessment of plans is a “snapshot in time.” With each 

hurricane or other catastrophic incident, new challenges arise and lessons are learned. These 

lessons are then folded into the next update of Federal, State, and local plans, and the planning 

cycle continues—as it should. This assessment is based upon questions that are predicated on 

Federal planning guidance in place prior to the 2005 hurricane season, and the plans reviewed 

were generally in compliance with that guidance. This guidance addresses evacuation, but not 

mass evacuation from a catastrophic incident. Our experiences during the 2005 hurricane season 

are evidence that the guidance needs to be revised to reflect the demands of a mass evacuation, 

and that State and local plans must be updated to comply with that new guidance. 

Additionally, this assessment focused on the written contents of the evacuation plans and not on 

the effectiveness of their execution during catastrophic incidents. Therefore, it is important to 

recognize that findings from this assessment may not reflect results from other studies that were 

conducted to assess the response to past catastrophic incidents, particularly to Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-2 

Status of Evacuation Plans in the Gulf Coast Region

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Management

Control

Scalable

Plans

Basic Plan

SOPs

Re-Entry

Public

Preparedness

Evacuation

Information

Evacuation

Status

Identify

Requirements

Distinct

Populations

All Modes

Transportation

Alternatives

Evacuation

Routes

Contraflow

Mutual Aid

Availability &

Status

Accountability

Animals

Volunteers

Continual

Improvement

Decision

Making

Planning Communication Special

Needs

Operations Sheltering Training

Plan Key Elements

Assessment

Very

Effective

Effective

Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

This assessment focused solely on one aspect of emergency management—evacuations, 

particularly in the Gulf Coast region. Again, it is therefore important to recognize that the 

assessment findings may differ slightly from those of other studies that looked at emergency 

preparedness in whole, such as the companion DHS report, or other studies such as the U.S. 

NRC report that presented case studies on 50 specific evacuations from across the nation that 

occurred before July 2003. 

Figure 4-1: Status of Evacuation Plans in the Gulf Coast Region 

The three areas in which the plans, as a group, were judged to be very effective are: 

1. Standard Operating Procedures (Planning): More than three-quarters of the plans were 

found to be very effective in terms of requiring organizations to prepare standard operations 

procedures that contain the detailed instructions that responsible individuals need to follow 

to accomplish assigned tasks. 

2. Exercises, After-Action Reports, Plan Updates (Training): More than three-quarters of 

the evacuation plans were found to be very effective in terms of requiring periodic reviews 

and updates of the plan, exercises, and after-action reports as part of the planning process. 

3. Direction and Control (Decision Making and Management): Three-quarters of the 

evacuation plans described direction and control procedures that were judged to be very 

effective with respect to mass evacuation requirements. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-3 

The five areas in which evacuation plans were weakest are: 

1. Information during Evacuations (Public Communications): Nearly two-thirds of the 

evacuation plans reviewed were judged to be either marginally or partially effective 

regarding measures to keep evacuees informed during evacuation. 

2. Evacuating Groups with Various Special Needs (Special Needs): A significant majority 

of the evacuation plans were judged to be either marginally or partially effective regarding 

provisions for evacuating persons with various special needs. 

3. Returning Evacuees to Their Homes (Planning): A significant majority of the evacuation 

plans were judged to be either marginally or partially effective regarding provisions for 

returning evacuees to their homes. 

4. Contraflow (Operations): More than three-quarters of the evacuation plans were judged to 

be only marginally or partially effective regarding the use of contraflow operations. 

5. Care and Protection of Animals (Sheltering): Almost three-quarters of the evacuation 

plans were judged to be either marginally or partially effective regarding provisions to care 

for and protect animals. 

Table 4-1 shows the assessment results for the 7 key elements and 20 questions. 

Table 4-1: Questions and Assessment Results 

Decision Making and Management 

Assessment Question 

D1 Does the plan describe direction and control with respect to mass evacuation? 

D2 Does the plan describe the provisions needed to execute a large-scale evacuation? 

Planning 

Assessment Criteria 

P1 

Does the plan address evacuation planning considerations (i.e., decision making, 

communications, available transportation modes, special needs, and sheltering) with 

regard to catastrophic events? 

P2 

Does the plan require organizations to prepare standard operating procedures that 

contain the detailed instructions that responsible individuals need to follow to 

accomplish assigned tasks? 

P3 Does the plan include provisions for returning evacuees to their homes? 

Public Communications and Preparedness 

Assessment Question 

C1 Does the plan describe the provisions and methods for alerting citizens that 

evacuation may be necessary? 

C2 Does the plan identify what will be done to keep evacuees informed during evacuation 

to reduce their level of mental and physical stress? 

C3 Does the plan describe the means the government will use to keep evacuees and the 

public informed on the specific actions they should take after evacuation has started? 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-4 

Evacuation of People with Special Needs 

Assessment Question 

N1 

Does the plan describe provisions for evacuating special needs populations including 

those in assisted living facilities, hospitals, and those living independently (e.g., people 

with physical, mental, cognitive, and developmental disabilities)? 

N2 

Does the plan describe provisions for evacuating other special needs populations 

(e.g., people in schools, day centers, mobile home parks, prisons and detention 

centers as well as, people that do not speak English or who are tourists, seasonal 

workers, or homeless)? 

Operations 

Assessment Question 

O1 Does the plan include provisions to ensure availability of public and commercial 

transport modes and necessary transport operators? 

O2 

Does the plan describe the safe and practical transportation modes that will be used to 

move evacuees that cannot transport themselves (other than special needs 

populations)? 

O3 Does the plan identify evacuation routes? 

O4 Does the plan address the use of contraflow measures? 

Sheltering Considerations 

Assessment Question 

S1 Does the plan require the establishment of mutual aid agreements with other 

jurisdictions to formalize access to and use of shelters? 

S2 

Does the plan include provisions for informing shelter operations and evacuees about 

the locations of public shelters outside of the evacuation area and their status (i.e., full, 

accepting evacuees, accepting evacuees with pets, special needs shelters, etc.)? 

S3 Does the plan address strategies and responsibilities for shelter operations? 

S4 Does the plan include provisions for the care and protection of animals? 

Mass Evacuation Training & Exercises 

Assessment Question 

T1 

Does the plan include provisions for training a volunteer cadre to support shelter 

management operations, transport of evacuees, and first aid stations along the 

evacuation routes, etc.? 

T2 Does the plan require periodic reviews and updates of the plan, exercises, and after 

action reports as part of the planning process? 

 Very Effective Effective Partially Effective Marginally Effective

Figure 4-2 shows how the plan assessment ratings stack up for each question within the seven 

key elements. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-5 

Figure 4-2: Evacuation Plans Assessment Ratings 

Decision Making and Management 

Decision making and management capabilities are critical to developing and implementing a 

successful emergency response plan. Managing the response to a catastrophic incident requires 

timely, effective decision making and a systematic management approach that applies sound, 

tested principles. SLG 101 highlights the significance of successful decision making and 

management throughout the life cycle of a disaster—“the manner in which the situation is 

managed will determine the effectiveness of the overall operation.” 

The NRP indicates that when major catastrophic incidents overwhelm State and local resources, 

governments at all levels are encouraged to implement decision making and management plans 

in support of evacuation efforts. And while local and State governments and their emergency 

response organizations (e.g., law enforcement, fire, and emergency management) have plans and 

SOPs necessary to conduct emergency operations decision making and management, SLG 101 

points out that catastrophic situations can easily overwhelm normal emergency operations since 

problems often arise in trying to manage operations involving disciplines, organizations, and 

agencies that are not accustomed to working together on a day-to-day basis. 

The benefits of having plans and procedures in place for effective decision making and 

management include: 

• Lines of authority and decision paths are clearly understood and readily applied 

Breakout of Key Elements Assessment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Management Control

Scalable Plans

Basic Plan

SOPs

Re-Entry

Public Preparedness

Evacuation Information

Evacuation Status

Identify Requirements

Distinct Populations

All Modes

Transportation Alternatives

Evacuation Routes

Contraflow

Mutual Aid

Availability & Status

Accountability

Animals

Volunteers

Continual Improvement

Decision Making Planning Communication Special Needs Operations Sheltering Training

Plan Key Elements

Percent of Plans Evaluated

Very Effective Effective Partially Effective Marginally Effective

Breakout of Key Elements Assessment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Management Control

Scalable Plans

Basic Plan

SOPs

Re-Entry

Public Preparedness

Evacuation Information

Evacuation Status

Identify Requirements

Distinct Populations

All Modes

Transportation Alternatives

Evacuation Routes

Contraflow

Mutual Aid

Availability & Status

Accountability

Animals

Volunteers

Continual Improvement

Decision Making Planning Communication Special Needs Operations Sheltering Training

Plan Key Elements

Percent of Plans Evaluated

Very Effective Effective Partially Effective Marginally Effective
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-6 

• Individuals and organizations know the essential information required for decisions and key 

management actions, and the procedures to share the information 

• Information and analysis provide situational awareness for emergency managers, which 

facilitates timely and effective decisions 

• Cross jurisdictional and cross organizational efforts are coordinated and synergized 

• Resources are applied more efficiently and effectively. 

Current Guidelines and Practices 

Decision making and management for a mass evacuation involves Federal, State, and local 

authorities. Under the NRP, a catastrophic incident triggers a comprehensive and integrated 

Federal, State, and local response. Numerous agencies from each level of government may be 

involved. The NRP describes the command structures and coordination processes for all of these 

agencies to work together. This decision making and management structure was discussed in 

Chapter II on the Federal, State, and local roles in evacuation planning and implementation. 

Assessment of Current Plans 

Two primary questions were used to evaluate how well the plans covered decision making and 

management requirements. The questions and results of the assessment are shown in Table 4-2. 

The evacuation plans in the Gulf Coast region generally were found to be effective or very 

effective in their treatment of decision making and management requirements under the current 

guidelines. 

Table 4-2: Decision Making and Management Questions and Assessment Results 

Decision Making and Management 

Assessment Question 

D1 Does the plan describe direction and control with respect to mass 

evacuation? 

D2 Does the plan describe the provisions needed to execute a large-scale 

evacuation? 

Figure 4-3 shows the assessment ratings for the decision making key element, with breakouts 

provided for the two questions—management control and scalable plans. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-7 

Figure 4-3: Decision Making and Management Assessment Ratings 

The first question assessed whether data are gathered, analyzed and provided to decision makers; 

how resources are assigned; how specific responsibilities are delegated to agencies and 

individuals; how coordination across agencies and levels of government is to occur; and how 

decision making and management responses will adjust to changing situations. 

The second question concerns whether the plans describe provisions necessary to manage a 

large-scale evacuation. Considerations include whether procedures are in place to allow 

emergency managers to base decisions on changing risks, changing resources, and changing 

capabilities throughout the course of an evacuation; whether processes for issuing and revising 

evacuation orders are established; whether evacuation plans are time-phased to permit prioritized 

and tailored responses; and whether strategies are implemented to address securing evacuated 

areas as well as those with special needs. 

The review found the plans generally include decision making frameworks necessary to 

implement large-scale evacuations, including requirements that agencies have SOPs. Most of the 

base plans and their annexes provide a significant amount of detail in terms of who, what, when, 

where, and how emergency tasks and responsibilities will be conducted. Tasks are identified and 

delegated to specific organizations. The plans also address the process for issuing and 

communicating evacuation orders. 

In general, plans with high scores for the decision making and management key element 

identified each responsible position by name with a primary and back-up position. They also 

efficiently laid out communication channels and which agency to contact, depending on the issue 

at hand. Additionally, they provided a comprehensive and logical approach to managing the 

Breakout of Key Elements Assessment - 

Decision Making and Management

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Very

Effective

Effective Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Very

Effective

Effective Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Management Control Scalable Plans

Percent of Plans Evaluated

Very High

High

Moderate

Low
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-8 

identification, acquisition, and distribution of necessary resources—to include involvement of 

legal and financial authorities to comply with applicable accounting obligations. Lastly, they 

provided detailed checklists of actions throughout the evacuation process. For example, the State 

of Florida provides an evacuation decision worksheet that can be updated. The worksheet helps 

emergency managers and other officials go through a consistent decision making process. 

On the other hand, plans with partial to marginal effectiveness scores generally lacked the 

specific detail of which agency and position would carry out the necessary actions involved. 

Many of the plans discussed evacuation procedures in very general terms and did not address the 

specific coordination at the field level that is necessary. Plans in this range did not effectively 

identify or link the roles and responsibilities of Federal, State, and local authorities. 

As illustrated above, discussion of intra-governmental direction and control often articulated 

specific responsibilities, lines of authority, and means of coordination among the agencies within 

a jurisdiction. However, some plans lacked the same details for inter-governmental 

coordination—lines of authority, means of coordination, and specific responsibilities between 

agencies were often unclear. 

The plans generally discuss the need to phase the execution of evacuations and provide some 

decision making information that emergency managers would need to make those decisions 

including numbers of people and vehicles and roadway throughput capacity. Some plans 

included checklists of various actions that should be taken based on the number of hours to 

landfall for different categories of hurricanes. 

Law enforcement agencies are heavily tasked throughout each of the plans. They are typically 

responsible for managing the evacuation, providing traffic control, securing the evacuated area, 

controlling access, assisting with route clearance, providing shelter security, moving prisoners 

from jails, assisting in emergency public information dissemination, and conducting general law 

and order operations. The SOPs from the law enforcement agencies are generally not included 

as part of the evacuation plans, and were not available for this review. 

Most plans provide estimates of the number of citizens that would evacuate in privately owned 

vehicles. However, the majority of plans do not contain estimates of the number of people 

requiring transportation assistance, including people who do not have access to a privately 

owned vehicle and people with special needs who rely on public transportation to evacuate. This 

information is needed for decision makers to effectively coordinate public transportation 

resources for an evacuation and to ensure transportation assets will be sufficient to evacuate 

special needs populations in time. 

There were several other areas where plans could be strengthened. Many plans do not include 

contingency plans, strategies, or processes to change activities based on changing factors in the 

disaster. In addition, many of the plans do not contain procedures for revising or amending 

evacuation orders, nor do they contain pre-approved drafts of executive orders for evacuation. 

Having draft orders and documents helps clarify authorities and may facilitate more timely 

evacuation decisions in the turmoil of a catastrophic incident. The Palm Beach County, Florida 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-9 

plan includes such a draft evacuation order. The appropriate official may quickly fill in the 

blanks to issue the order. 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations 

Decision to Initiate Contraflow Operations: While some officials indicated that regular 

highway operations should be continued as long as possible to minimize disruption, the general 

consensus is that contraflow operations on major highways work well and facilitate evacuations. 

Still, recent experiences indicate that implementing contraflow operations was less than optimal 

because, in some jurisdictions, decision makers did not know how long it would take to deploy 

resources necessary to initiate contraflow operations. Contraflow is a relatively new strategy, and 

continued analysis and investigation is needed. 

Flexibility: There were several instances when communication networks were out of service 

and local, State, and Federal agencies could not reach each other, despite efforts to utilize all 

available methods. When in this situation, officials and emergency managers must balance 

adhering to the plan, which may require coordination with unreachable colleagues, with serving 

the needs of their jurisdiction in an information vacuum. Effective plans anticipate this issue 

with contingency plans and flexibility to adjust to dynamic situations. 

Best Practices 

The Texas Task Force on Evacuation, Transportation and Logistics was created in 2005, in direct 

response to the evacuation concerns brought upon by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. With the 

increased attention on the Gulf Coast States, events took place that defined the lessons learned 

and recommendations to better address evacuations and all things included like transportation 

and logistics. The Texas Task Force focused on five key areas in the final report including 

command, control, and communication; evacuation of people with special needs; fuel 

availability; traffic flow; and public awareness. These areas were identified most often during a 

series of public hearings. The final report was released on February 14, 2006, and just recently 

Texas Governor Rick Perry announced the Executive Order RP57. This executive order has led 

to the implementation of some of the Texas Task Force recommendations, and is an early step in 

the process to clarify the decision making and management structure and processes in Texas. 

Planning 

State and local EOPs for mass evacuation are the “roadmaps” for how the emergency 

management agencies will help people in their community leave an unsafe area. The plans 

evaluate the risks for the community, describe the information emergency managers need to 

execute an evacuation, determine what actions will be taken and who will carry out those 

actions, and discuss strategies and alternatives if events do not go as anticipated. Plans are 

updated periodically to reflect new hazards, address changes in the community, and incorporate 

improvements learned from exercises and real events. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-10 

An evacuation plan is much more than a written document; it is the outcome of a planning 

process. A plan for a mass evacuation from a catastrophic incident cannot be created by one 

agency. Plans for a complex, multi-jurisdictional disaster require coordination and integration of 

plans with partner Federal, State, and local agencies as well as 

NGOs and the private sector. Evacuation plans that are integrally 

linked with the plans of supporting agencies must be updated 

regularly to reflect changes in capabilities and resources of the 

partners. The process of working with partner agencies to assess 

risks, develop strategies and contingencies, and exercise and test 

plans is a very important part of the process. It builds effective working relationships among 

agencies and managers and shares the knowledge and expertise across many disciplines. With 

the Federal, State, and local emergency management agencies adopting the ICS and following 

similar planning guidelines, this coordination becomes easier because the agencies “speak the 

same language.” 

Current Guidelines and Practices 

SLG 101 is used by many State and local jurisdictions to help develop their EOPs, including 

evacuation planning. SLG 101 recommends a planning process that builds on the jurisdictions’ 

existing plans; includes a hazard and risk analysis to establish priorities; and includes a broad 

range of public, private sector, and volunteer organizations that will be involved in a mass 

evacuation. SLG 101 includes a Functional Annex that specifically addresses evacuation 

planning and a Hazard-Unique Planning Considerations Annex that addresses hurricanes. 

Both SLG 101 and the NRP promote collaborative planning processes across jurisdictions, with 

different levels of government, and among agencies. SLG 101 notes that many jurisdictions 

mirror the Federal plans including establishing the same ESFs for State agencies. The NRP 

provides information that will help States and local jurisdictions ensure their plans link up easily 

with Federal resources in a catastrophic incident. 

Another important source of planning information for State and local jurisdictions are HES 

conducted by the USACE, FEMA, and the NWS. These studies provide survey and analysis of 

surge and evacuation zones, behavioral studies, shelter analysis, and transportation analysis. 

This information is used by local emergency management officials to update and improve their 

evacuation plans. These agencies, and others, have also developed a number of models that 

assist in evacuation planning and decision making. These models are described in the following 

section, and more detail is provided in Appendix F. 

Hurricane Evacuation Models. Over the past four decades, and especially since 9/11, 

researchers and emergency management personnel have sought to better understand and predict 

the characteristics of evacuations. This research has led to the development of models, which 

have contributed to planning for and executing evacuations. Information from these models 

provided to decision makers and managers of evacuations are highlighted below. The first five 

hurricane models or applications are operational tools, while the last three models or applications 

are analytical tools geared specifically for transportation modeling and analysis. 

“Plans are nothing; 

planning is everything.” 

Dwight D. Eisenhower 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-11 

Operational Modeling Tools 

SLOSH Model (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes): For a given set of storm 

conditions, this model from the NWS predicts storm surge and is used to help plan evacuation 

routes and locate emergency shelters based on estimates of the extent of flooding. 

HURREVAC (Hurricane EVACuation): Developed by USACE for FEMA, this model tracks 

and projects the course of an approaching hurricane and projects the anticipated course once it 

makes landfall. It draws on SLOSH model information and other sources and is used to help 

determine when to commence evacuation of an area. 

HAZUS-MH (Multi-Hazards U.S. Software): Developed by FEMA, this tool predicts the 

impacts of disasters to buildings and structures from various hazards. Managers can use this 

model to gauge the physical safety of shelters in different categories of hurricanes and estimate 

the number of people that may need shelter. 

CATS (Consequence Assessment Tool Set/Joint Assessment of Catastrophic Events 

(JACE): Developed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency with guidance from FEMA, 

CATS integrates an array of information to provide disaster analysis in real time. CATS helps 

estimate damage and assists emergency managers to develop mitigation strategies. 

 

ETIS (Evacuation Traffic Information System): Developed by the U.S. DOT in collaboration 

with FEMA, ETIS combines behavioral studies, data from past occurrences, and real-time data 

such as traffic incidents, weather information, evacuation percentages, and tourist occupancy 

rates to monitor highway evacuation processes. 

Analytical Modeling Tools 

NETVAC (NETwork emergency eVACuation): This model provides limited analysis for 

evacuations to analyze route selection, intersection controls, and lane management. 

MASSVAC (MASS eVACuation): This is a simulation model of highway networks to identify 

routes to the nearest shelters and to calculate evacuation time. 

OREMS (Oak Ridge Evacuation Modeling System): OREMS is a probabilistic model that 

uses large amounts of highway network information combined with local data for a systems 

approach to evacuation operations. 

Of the eight models reviewed, no one model or application is designed to meet all planning and 

emergency evacuation requirements. However, many of the models have common functionality, 

data input requirements, and the ability to modify a “baseline” or default model run setting or 

scenario. A significant difference in model applications is the distinction between planning for 

an event (e.g., hurricane) versus responding to an incident (e.g., earthquake or man-made 

disaster), with the variable of time for planning and response. Depending on the type of 

evacuation requirement, different models and their data inputs, functionality, and resulting 

decisions may vary significantly. However, many communities are faced with both requirements 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-12 

for planning for community safety and continuity of government operations. Therefore, many 

government organizations will need access to or the results of these different models for both 

planning and response. 

Costs of Evacuation Plans: One of the factors Congress requested this study to assess is the 

cost of evacuation plans. The U.S. DOT attempted to collect cost information for the Gulf Coast 

States, but specific cost information was generally not available. The limited cost information 

received for this study was incomplete and of limited value for analysis. 

State officials reported that determining the amount of funding allocated and spent for 

evacuation planning and implementation would be difficult since funding comes from many 

sources at the Federal, State, and local level, and many agencies within the various levels of 

government have agencies involved. The States do not budget specific amounts for evacuation 

planning, but include these costs within broader emergency management programs. While State 

officials reported evacuation planning is done within current funding, they felt that funding was 

constrained. However, they did not identify specific activities that were limited by lack of 

funding. 

Assessment of Current Plans 

The three questions used to assess general planning elements of State and local evacuation plans 

in the Gulf Coast region are shown in Table 4-3. 

Table 4-3: Planning Questions and Assessment Results 

Planning 

Assessment Question 

P1 

Does the plan address evacuation planning considerations (i.e., decision making, 

communications, available transportation modes, special needs, and sheltering) with 

regard to catastrophic events? 

P2 

Does the plan require organizations to prepare standard operating procedures that 

contain the detailed instructions that responsible individuals need to follow to 

accomplish assigned tasks? 

P3 Does the plan include provisions for returning evacuees to their homes? 

Figure 4-4 shows the assessment ratings for the planning key element, with breakouts provided 

for its three questions—basic plan, SOPs, and re-entry. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-13 

Figure 4-4: Planning Assessment Ratings 

The first question includes a broad range of planning considerations that should be addressed in 

an evacuation plan. These planning considerations include prioritizing communities for 

evacuation based on risks; estimating the number of people and vehicles to be evacuated, 

including people with special needs and those without their own transportation; identifying 

decision points for implementing an evacuation based on different hazards; estimating the time 

needed to complete evacuations of different types and scales; estimating how far evacuees will 

have to travel to safety; and coordinating with other agencies and jurisdictions that may be 

involved in the evacuation including those that will shelter evacuees. 

The second question concerns whether participating organizations are required to develop 

standard operating procedures with detailed instructions on how the plan will be implemented 

and who is responsible for specific tasks. Standard operating procedures tell agency staff how to 

implement various parts of the evacuation plan and help to ensure that important details are not 

overlooked. 

The third question concerns whether evacuation plans include provisions for returning evacuees 

to their homes and connecting family members separated during the evacuation process. These 

aspects of evacuations can be among the most stressful; having procedures in place to address 

these issues can help reduce the stress and tensions associated with these troublesome aspects of 

evacuations. 

Overall, the plans in the region were generally found to be effective in addressing the broad 

range of planning considerations associated with evacuations in current guidelines. In general, 

plans with high scores for this key element included a very proactive approach to the evacuation 

Breakout of Key Elements Assessment - Planning

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Very

EffectiveEffective

Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Very

EffectiveEffective

Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Very

EffectiveEffective

Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Basic Plan SOPs Re-Entry

Percent of Plans Evaluated

Very High

High

Moderate

Low

Moderate 

50% 

Very High 

Low 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-14 

process. This would include identification of evacuation zones by zip code, pre-scripting 

evacuation time lines to identify key decision points, and conducting mitigation hazard 

assessments to identify the most vulnerable areas in varying jurisdictions. These plans also 

establish a Missing Persons Unit immediately after the plan activates, and contain pre-scripted 

re-entry messages to assist the coordination of citizens returning. 

The strongest part of plans is their recognition of the importance of SOPs to implement the 

evacuation plan and assign specific tasks to individuals. Some of the plans, however, do not 

include sufficient details such as estimates of the numbers of evacuees and vehicles, distance and 

travel time to designated shelters, capacity of evacuation routes and modes of transportation, 

contingency plans, and sufficient provisions for returning evacuees to their homes. Some local 

governments in low-lying areas at higher risk for flooding do not include decision points or 

criteria for when to implement an evacuation. Others do not specify the organizations tasked to 

prepare and maintain the plans and procedures for mass evacuation. 

Although the majority of State and local plans have provisions for contraflow operations, some 

do not identify a system in their plans for communicating and coordinating contraflow operations 

with neighboring jurisdictions or demonstrate that the contraflow plans have been tested in an 

exercise or in a real evacuation. 

Most attributes associated with planning for re-entry of the population after a disaster are not 

adequately addressed, and plans generally were judged to be only partially effective with respect 

to this question. In a few cases, the re-entry section of the plans state that it must be conducted 

with the same level of care as the evacuation, but the plans did not provide information or 

procedures, or assign responsibilities to agencies to accomplish this task. Processes and 

procedures to help reunite evacuees with family members separated during the evacuation have 

also not been adequately addressed. 

The decision to re-enter an area that has been impacted by a hurricane is based on public safety 

factors. Decision makers must be assured that the impacted area is safe for residents and business 

owners to return. That requires State and local agencies to inspect the areas and aid any victims 

of the storm, move debris to open roadways, handle downed power lines, and other such actions. 

These activities take time, and this has an impact on how long people need to remain in shelters 

or in the location in which they sought refuge. 

Some of these factors are particularly critical for special needs evacuees who may need power to 

run medical equipment on which they depend or the elderly who may need air conditioning to 

avoid heat-related medical problems. Mississippi Department of Health Officials noted that this 

The States of Louisiana and Mississippi have worked together to develop contraflow plans on I-55 

and I-59 to be used if a hurricane rated as Category 3 or higher is moving in the direction of greater 

New Orleans. There are five Levels in the plans with Levels 1 through 3 being preparedness 

related. Level 4 is the actual operation of contraflow only within Louisiana, and Level 5 is contraflow 

operations within both States. The two States have an agreement on notification timeframes prior to 

the implementation of contraflow operations to ensure both States have the appropriate resources in 

place. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-15 

is something that they are working to address during the revision of their mass care plans. The 

Florida Legislature has taken up legislation to allow for reimbursement for the purchase of 

generators by nursing homes that may end up sheltering evacuees from another location. 

It is likely that an area impacted by a hurricane will have zones with varying degrees of impact. 

That means the re-entry process may happen in phases as each geographic area is deemed safe 

for evacuees’ return. After Hurricane Rita, Texas implemented a phased re-entry plan that was 

very successful. Officials determined which geographic areas could return and set a timetable 

during which each area could be re-entered. The phases were well reported by the media. This 

phased approach worked well in avoiding the major traffic jams that occurred during the 

evacuation for the same hurricane. 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations 

Current evacuation plans are not sufficient for mass evacuations from catastrophic 

incidents. The plans assessment revealed that, in general, the States followed the Federal 

guidance in preparing their evacuation plans to address all hazards, including natural, 

technological, and/or national security emergencies or disaster situations. However, Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita were catastrophic incidents that involved extraordinary levels of mass 

casualties, damage, and disruption, and overwhelmed the Federal, State and local responders. 

The results of the evacuations for these two hurricanes clearly demonstrated the need for more 

detailed planning for evacuation management and control, contingency plans, better estimates of 

transportation needs, and planning processes to ensure coordination and integration of resources 

and capabilities of government agencies at all levels. Therefore, this study established the fact 

that there is a huge gap between the current evacuation plans, and the execution of these plans to 

carry out mass evacuations in response to catastrophic incidents. 

Evacuation plans are fragmented. Evacuation plans for a region are spread among a “family 

of plans.” These include plans, supplements, and annexes from various agencies and 

jurisdictions that contain different levels of specificity and different organization of topics. It 

was challenging for the U.S. DOT to assemble all of the evacuation plans for this study because 

components of the evacuation plans were in many different agencies’ plans. It is also difficult for 

State and local emergency planners to assemble all of the important evacuation elements from 

the various agencies. In addition, it is difficult for planners and operational staff to assess 

whether all of the pieces of the plans work together and are in coordination with the plans of 

other jurisdictions. 

No national evacuees database. Re-entry planning should be done well before a disaster to 

avoid trying to develop the plan as emergency response operations are still ongoing. During 

Hurricane Katrina’s landfall, Mississippi’s EOC phone systems jammed due to thousands of 

phone calls by people trying to locate family members and friends. In the days following 

Katrina, additional phone lines were added to handle the call volume. Volunteers staffed the 

phone lines and began a missing persons database system. According to the Mississippi 

Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) Executive Director’s Congressional Testimony 

relating to Katrina response, the missing persons hotline took more than 10,000 calls from 35 

different countries. There was no national system in place to identify people in shelters, missing 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-16 

people, or people who have been located and are safe. This was a national problem because this 

was a multi-State event and disaster victims were displaced in many States. 

Best Practices 

Coordination between Local, State, and Federal Agencies. The planning processes of State 

and local agencies usually include coordination and integration of State and local jurisdiction 

plans. In a mass evacuation from a catastrophic incident, Federal resources and capabilities will 

be an important part of the States’ emergency response. There was very little discussion in the 

plans of how the States should coordinate with appropriate Federal agencies and resources. The 

State of Mississippi has a very comprehensive emergency management law that outlines roles 

and responsibilities of State and local jurisdictions for implementation of the Governor’s 

authorities during emergencies and disasters. This law makes MEMA responsible for the 

emergency operations plan and tasks the agency with oversight of all emergency plans at the 

State and local level. Under this law, MEMA is given the responsibility and accountability to 

work with agencies at the State and local level involved in emergency management to work 

toward compliance with the state CEMP and the NRP. The law also requires that plans include 

an evacuation and shelter component, a disaster response and recovery component, use of the 

National Guard, communication and warning, training and exercises, and urban search and 

rescue. County emergency management offices are required to establish a communication 

capability at the local level to ensure adequate flow of information during times of emergency. 

The framework of this law is an important step; similar coordinated planning processes are 

needed between the States and the appropriate Federal agencies for mass evacuations. 

The Mississippi and North Carolina Departments of Health (DOHs) have been working together 

in support of response to disasters for years. Following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the 

two DOHs decided to take this relationship to the next level—representatives from North 

Carolina are conducting the after-action report for the Mississippi DOH for ESF-8 (Health and 

Medical Services). The findings from the after-action report will be incorporated into its plans as 

the report is available. This example of peer review also demonstrates the mutual aid that has 

continued since Katrina as the States directly affected and the States who have assisted all want 

to identify and plan how they will operate more effectively during future disasters. 

Public Communication and Preparedness 

Even the most comprehensive evacuation plans are only as good as their ability to help inform 

public agencies of when and what to communicate to the public. In general, the evacuation plans 

should contain provisions relating to public communications before evacuations and during 

evacuations, ensuring people evacuate safely. Plans that successfully accomplish this goal are 

able to develop targeted messages geared towards specific audience(s) that impart information to 

that group in a manner that allows them to receive and apply the message(s) or information. 

Moreover, when the message(s) being communicated contains information that will protect and 

prepare people for a significant event, such as a hurricane evacuation, it is that much more 

critical to provide citizens with the tools and access to information that will make them and their 

families safer and more secure. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-17 

Current Guidelines and Practices 

The NRP addresses the types of public communication that are essential during all phases of an 

evacuation. The NRP discusses the need to educate the public before an event about evacuations, 

sheltering, preparedness kits, public health, and safety issues. The NRP also speaks to public 

information during an evacuation, such as evacuation routes, estimated travel times for an 

evacuation, public transportation options, location of staging areas, location of shelters, 

evacuating family pets, and informing those with special needs. The NRP additionally addresses 

recovery communications, informing the public on transportation infrastructure and access to the 

impacted area, security initiatives in place to protect their evacuated property, and the status and 

timing of plans to return home, as well as the importance of coordinating with local media 

outlets to disseminate evacuation information. 

Additionally, the Emergency Public Information (EPI) Attachment to SLG 101 contains 

guidance on providing the public with accurate, timely, and useful information instructions 

throughout the emergency period and recommends that EPI organizations develop close ties with 

local media to ensure message dissemination to the public. 

State and local evacuation plans were evaluated against three main questions associated with 

Public Communications and Preparedness. The questions and the results of the assessment of 

the plans are summarized in Table 4-4. 

Table 4-4: Public Communications and Preparedness Criteria and Assessment Results 

Public Communications and Preparedness 

Assessment Question 

C1 Does the plan describe the provisions and methods for alerting citizens that evacuation 

may be necessary? 

C2 Does the plan identify what will be done to keep evacuees informed during evacuation 

to reduce their level of mental and physical stress? 

C3 Does the plan describe the means the government will use to keep evacuees and the 

public informed on the specific actions they should take after evacuation has started? 

Figure 4-5 shows the assessment ratings for the communication key element, with breakouts 

provided for its three questions—public preparedness, evacuation information, and evacuation 

status. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-18 

Figure 4-5: Public Communications and Preparedness Assessment Ratings 

The first question concerns how well plans describe provisions and methods for alerting citizens 

that an evacuation may be necessary. Specific factors that plans should address in connection 

with this question are when and how the public should be informed that evacuations may be 

necessary; contingency plans in the event that standard means of communications are 

unavailable; communication plans to inform those with limited English language proficiency; 

communications with various special needs populations; and transportation-specific information 

such as estimated travel times, alternate evacuation routes, and modes of transportation. 

The second question concerns how well plans address needs for communications during a 

hurricane evacuation. Specific factors considered include communications with evacuees 

concerning traffic conditions; the availability of food, water, restrooms, and other services along 

evacuation routes; and the location and availability of shelters along evacuation routes including 

shelters that accept pets and persons with special needs. Factors also include the extent to which 

those on public transportation are kept adequately informed of their destination, arrival time, the 

availability of shelters, and other vital information they need to know. 

The final question concerns the extent to which plans describe specific methods that public 

agencies use to communicate information to the public during an evacuation. Without this detail, 

it is difficult to assess whether communication plans are likely to be successful and whether 

information will be up to date and thus useful in a very dynamic environment. Among the 

methods that would be most effective are variable message signs along the highway, highway 

advisory radio, and 511 service. 

Breakout of Key Elements Assessment - 

Public Communications and Preparedness

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Very

EffectiveEffective

Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Very

EffectiveEffective

Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Very

EffectiveEffective

Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Public Preparedness Evacuation Information Evacuation Status

Percent of Plans Evaluated

Very High

High

Moderate

Low

50% 

Low 

Very High 

Moderate 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-19 

Assessment of Current Plans 

Overall, evacuation plans in the Gulf Coast region are inconsistent in terms of communications 

with the public before and during an evacuation. Generally, plans are strongest in providing preevacuation information to residents about evacuation routes, sheltering locations, and other 

essential information households need to know before they evacuate. Plans are weakest in what 

information will be communicated to the public during an evacuation and how that information 

will be communicated. To some extent this was to be expected, as circumstances are prone to 

change while an evacuation is underway and traditional methods of communication are often 

unavailable. 

Public Communications and Preparedness Before an Evacuation: Assessment of this 

question showed that the majority of the plans included provisions, such as pre-written media 

messages, for timely communication of evacuation instructions to prepare citizens in advance of 

the order to evacuate. For example, the Collier County Florida plan states that the county 

maintains a listing of camera-ready public service announcements to keep evacuees informed. 

More than half the plans reviewed also identified the use of alternate means for communicating 

with the public, such as reverse 911 systems that automatically call certain people to notify them 

of an emergency. Nearly half of the plans included provisions for communicating with people 

that have limited English proficiency. Some of the means identified are specialized phone 

services such as the pre-recorded audio and video tapes, publications in Spanish, media, bilingual 

outlets, and door-to-door public addressing. 

The majority of the plans identified provisions for communicating with evacuees that have 

special needs (people that are hearing, vision, physically impaired, etc.). For example, the Indian 

River County, Florida plan calls for the use of a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) 

by the County during an evacuation. Plans should address the need for providing current 

information that is tailored to the specific needs of various groups having special transportation, 

sheltering, and evacuation needs. 

The assessment also highlighted some weak areas within this area. Only a very limited number 

of plans contained sample public information messages for use in times of evacuations. The 

majority of plans did not address informing the public about alternate transportation modes, 

alternative evacuation routes, and estimated travel times. Previous evacuation experiences 

indicate that residents are often under-informed about the best evacuation routes, are unaware of 

alternate routes, and face added frustration by being misinformed about the amount of time that 

an evacuation might take. The U.S. DOT found that most of the Gulf Coast States and counties 

provide information about evacuation routes on their public Web sites. While this method of 

public information is very useful for pre-evacuation preparedness, it is not the ideal method for 

providing public information during evacuation since a majority of evacuees would not 

necessarily have Internet access while en route. 

Public Communication During an Evacuation: Within the key element of Public 

Communication and Preparedness, plans were judged to be weakest with respect to the second 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-20 

question⎯providing evacuees with information during an evacuation. Nearly all of the plans 

lacked consistency in the type of information provided to the public during an evacuation. 

Overall, many of the plans did not address details pertaining to informing evacuees of available 

transportation modes, access to these modes, and any restrictions on what evacuees may carry 

with them when traveling on these modes. The plans also did not include provisions for 

informing evacuees about when transportation assistance will begin and end and the frequency of 

departure at designated pick-up locations. In addition, the plans did not establish times for public 

officials to provide updates, and about informing the public on when to expect such updates. The 

plans did not address provisions for communicating security measures to the public. The plans 

did not address provisions for one of the critical attributes⎯informing evacuees of their 

destination before boarding public transportation. 

Most plans did not address details pertaining to providing the public with information about 

available services along evacuation routes and at shelters. One exception is the Hillsborough 

County, Florida Host County Shelter Plan. It describes how the county is a potential destination 

for large numbers of evacuees from disaster situations in other parts of Florida. Under such a 

scenario, Information Centers for incoming evacuees would be set up along, or near, highways at 

the approach ends of the county. The Florida Department of Transportation’s dynamic message 

signs (DMS) would be placed at key places on the inbound highways directing evacuees to the 

Information Centers. Lodging information, provided by the Tampa Convention & Visitors 

Association, and shelter information will be provided at the Information Centers. Public shelters 

sufficient to meet the demand will be opened as needed as close as possible to the Information 

Centers. Communicating essential information to those evacuating, including alternative 

evacuation routes, changes in weather conditions, upcoming service areas, and availability status 

of shelters, can help avoid problems associated with motorists running out of fuel; being unable 

to find food, water, restrooms, and other services; wasting time and fuel going to shelters that are 

already full; and many other issues associated with a lack of information. 

Past experiences tell us that not having information on any of the above factors can easily 

manifest itself in the form of mental and physical difficulties among evacuees. The plans should 

recognize that evacuations can be extremely stressful and that information on the above factors 

known to be of concern to different groups of evacuees can help reduce stress. One way that the 

government is responding to the development of depression and post-traumatic stress syndrome 

among victims and first responders is through the HHS’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Ad Council’s Hurricane Mental Health Awareness 

Campaign. This campaign provides both radio and television public service announcements 

encouraging the treatment of these issues. 

Means of Communicating with Evacuees: The primary finding under this question was that 

nearly all of the plans lacked details on the means of communicating real-time evacuation status 

information to the public. While a few plans indicated the use of emergency radio 

announcements for reporting highway conditions to the evacuees, most plans did not address the 

use of ITS to support emergency transportation information. Some of the ITS tools for this 

purpose include the nationwide 511 travel information phone number, DMS along evacuation 

routes, highway advisory radio (HAR) announcements, and travel information Web sites. Each 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-21 

“The fear is mostly from flooding, 

from tidal surge. There were 

estimates that showed the storm 

would put five feet of water 

throughout the center if they had a 

22-foot storm surge." 

A NASA spokesperson describing 

the potential damage to the 

Johnson Space Center if 

Hurricane Rita made a direct hit to 

the Galveston/Houston area. 

of these tools, if implemented properly, could significantly improve evacuation-related 

communication to the public, both before and during evacuations. 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations 

Better Public Information on Risks and 

Responsibilities: The public is often confused by 

evacuation information and unable to make informed 

decisions on evacuations. Different terms are used to order 

an evacuation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, recommended, 

partial, and full), and the public may not know when to 

properly respond to the order. People often do not 

understand storm surge. They are focused on the category 

of the hurricane and the wind speed, but not the storm 

surge. People often do not know if they are located in 

storm surge areas and are at higher risk for flooding and 

should evacuate. Others may evacuate unnecessarily and 

cause additional congestion. Similarly, some local meteorologists may make different predictions 

on the level and path for a hurricane than the National Hurricane Center. This information will 

be more critical in future hurricane seasons with large numbers of people still housed in FEMA 

trailers that are more vulnerable to high winds. 

Coordinated, Frequent and Accurate Information to the Public: During an evacuation, the 

government must recognize that the media can be both a partner or a constraint. One New 

Orleanian with whom the evaluation team spoke described the impact of local radio stations on 

his contraflow experiences last summer. As he made his way from New Orleans to Houston 

before Katrina’s landfall, he praised the Baton Rouge radio stations that provided rush hour 

traffic updates even though it was the weekend. Although he was moving slowly, he and his 

family knew what was happening in terms of traffic flow.36 

However, when he attempted to leave Houston for Rita, the local radio stations reported on the 

problems but did not provide much usable information. He eventually returned to his temporary 

home in Houston to ride out the storm. While this is only one experience out of millions, it does 

show that even when local, State, and Federal officials do everything within their means to 

provide information to the public, the government is also reliant on outside sources, such as the 

media, to act responsibly. 

Cultural Differences: Effective communication is not limited to ensuring people receive the 

information. Disseminators of public information must also be aware of different cultural groups 

in a community and their norms for responding to emergencies. For example, when it comes to 

evacuation, many people who are from an island, like those in the Caribbean, are used to seeking 

higher ground when a big storm comes—there simply is no where else to go. However, once 

they move to the mainland, this evacuation strategy may not fall into line with what is the best 

course of action for their new community or home. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-22 

Best Practices 

The Terrebonne Parish Readiness and Assistance Coalition (TRAC) was born out of a call to 

action in response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992. As this community pulled together to help 

rebuild and raise homes for those in need, the founders of TRAC, 28 community organizations 

including emergency management, religious groups and hospitals, partnered to prepare and 

educate area residents. Ninety percent of the Parish is wetlands or covered by open water. Many 

of the people in the area live in poverty and have language barriers. Today, TRAC serves 21 

parishes throughout southern Louisiana through a comprehensive public education campaign that 

includes print, television, radio, Web, and personal education and outreach. Updated in 2005 

(prior to Hurricane Katrina), each part of the campaign reminds Louisiana residents that they 

must be prepared for hurricanes and corresponding evacuations. Much of the information that 

TRAC provides it residents could be used as baseline information for other disasters and by 

people who live in other parts of the country. It does not differ significantly from publications 

like FEMA’s Are You Ready? What TRAC does is convey the risk associated with hurricanes in 

the context of Louisianans’ geography and attitudes. This includes describing the long history of 

devastation and destruction of hurricanes in the State, including the storm Chenier Caminanda of 

October 1893 and Betsy in September 1965. TRAC also recognizes the geographic changes of 

Louisiana in recent years, explaining to residents that the Gulf is much closer to them and their 

homes than it was in the past. The combination of these elements into TRAC’s campaign drives 

home the message that many of the things that make Louisiana unique in a positive way, also put 

it at increased risk. 

To educate residents on hurricane preparation, public and private entities have developed 

information materials. As an example, Louisiana’s “Make a Plan Campaign” denotes personal 

responsibility and education. In addition, DHS’ Ready.gov tells people how to make emergency 

plans and kits, and local Red Cross chapters administer education campaigns to educate the 

public. During a storm, information is conveyed through various sources of media. Louisiana 

communicates hurricane information differently depending on the parish in which one resides. 

Some notification will occur over radio, television, an Emergency Information Line, and on 

roadside messaging machines. Additionally, some parishes go street to street with megaphones 

announcing evacuation information to its residents. Printed information is currently available in 

English, and the State and parishes are working on additional translated information and classes 

in Spanish and Vietnamese. 

Local and State governments are also utilizing existing resources, like 311, 211, and 511 

information systems, to provide information to residents before, during, and after disasters. 

Miami-Dade County 311 service operators are trained to provide up-to-date information on a 

wide variety of issues ranging from standing evacuations to the areas that are under boil water 

orders. While waiting to speak to an operator, residents listen to a recording informing them 

about preparedness information and joining the local Citizen Corps and Community Emergency 

Response Team (CERT). The State of Texas is launching a new 211 service on May 1, 2006, 

that will allow residents and visitors to call in if they need a ride or other assistance with an 

evacuation. Florida’s 511 travel information telephone service allows the State DOT to provide 

information about current traffic and travel conditions to callers. In addition, the 511 system can 

be used to provide area-wide alerts, warnings or emergency information to all callers. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-23 

During the 2005 Hurricane Season, the affected States coordinated messages across State 

boundaries so that motorists would know about closures, other travel restrictions, and detours 

where reasonable alternatives were available. For example, signs in Texas alerted motorists to 

closures in Louisiana. Alabama deployed portable dynamic message signs near Mobile, 

Montgomery, and Birmingham to alert motorists to closures and restrictions along the Gulf Coast 

highways into Mississippi. 

Evacuation of People with Special Needs 

A key population to address in evacuation planning and implementation is people with special 

needs. In Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, people with special needs often were overlooked during 

the evacuation process. Special needs populations should be clearly defined to ensure that these 

populations are included and addressed in the plans. For this report, people with special needs 

are defined as people who are elderly, people with disabilities and other medical conditions, 

people with limited English proficiency, people with hearing and sight impairments, people who 

are in institutions, and people without access to private vehicles. Appropriate planning, 

coordination, and resources should be included in evacuation planning because the special needs 

population may need accessible transportation, medical equipment and medicine, and other 

accommodations that will allow for a smooth evacuation process. 

Current Guidelines and Practices 

The NRP addresses people with special needs throughout the plan. Under ESF-6: Mass Care, 

Housing, and Human Services, the American Red Cross and FEMA are to assist evacuees and 

people with special needs. For example, the American Red Cross and FEMA are to coordinate 

and identify individuals with special needs within the impacted area including the elderly, people 

with disabilities, and people communicating in languages other than English including sign 

language.37 Also, the NRP refers to the use of the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS), 

which can be activated by the DHS to assist in medical response and patient evacuations beyond 

the care provided under ESF-6 for Mass Care. NDMS is a partnership among the DOD, the 

DHS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA). The DHS is responsible for the medical response, DOD is responsible for patient 

evacuation from the air fields to participating NDMS Federal Coordination Centers and Medical 

Treatment Facilities, and VA is responsible for leading the definitive care. The VA set up 

facilities to prepare for Hurricane Rita in September 2005. Community clinics were secured in 

Galveston and Texas City and the VA sent staff to weather out the storm and assist in providing 

care for critically ill patients in selected hospitals.38

In addition, the current American Red Cross policy is that only service animals to assist people 

with disabilities such as seeing eye dogs are accepted in American Red Cross shelters. Pets are 

not currently accepted due to hygiene and sanitation concerns. The American Red Cross is 

working with the Humane Society to develop facilities close to human shelters to shelter pets. 

The SLG 101 provides detail on requirements to accommodate special needs populations in State 

and local emergency operations plans. Chapter 2 in the SLG 101 on planning, specifies that 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-24 

emergency managers’ operations plans should identify the special needs groups (e.g., people 

with limited English proficiency, the elderly, or people with disabilities) and where they are 

concentrated (especially in facilities such as nursing homes). 

There are both public and private requirements that hospitals and nursing homes have emergency 

operations plans. The recent GAO report on nursing home and hospital evacuations during 

Hurricane Katrina notes that, “The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid require hospitals and 

nursing homes that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to maintain emergency operations 

plans.” In addition, the GAO report noted that “the Joint Commission on Accreditation of 

Healthcare Organizations requires that hospitals and nursing homes it accredits to maintain 

emergency operations plans that include processes for evacuations.” 

State and local corrections facilities are responsible for the health and safety of their populations. 

Under State and local requirements, these facilities establish emergency evacuation plans and 

procedures. These plans usually focus on localized emergencies such as fire, rather than mass 

evacuations in which the entire facility must be evacuated. 

Assessment of Current Plans 

The evaluation questions developed and used for the review of the evacuation plans focused on 

how well these plans addressed the special needs population. These criteria are shown in Table 

4-5. 

Table 4-5: Evacuation of People with Special Needs Questions and Assessment Results 

Evacuation of People with Special Needs 

Assessment Question 

N1 

Does the plan describe provisions for evacuating special needs populations including 

those in assisted living facilities, hospitals, and those living independently (e.g., people 

with physical, mental, cognitive, and developmental disabilities)? 

N2 

Does the plan describe provisions for evacuating other special needs populations (e.g., 

people in schools, day centers, mobile home parks, prisons and detention centers as 

well as, people that do not speak English or who are tourists, seasonal workers, or 

homeless)? 

Figure 4-6 shows the assessment ratings for the special needs key element, with breakouts 

provided for its two questions—identify requirements and distinct populations. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-25 

Figure 4-6: Evacuation of People with Special Needs Assessment Ratings 

The first question was used to examine whether the plans describe the means to evacuate people 

with disabilities. This includes plans that address people with disabilities that are in residential 

facilities or institutions such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and hospitals, as well as 

people with disabilities who live independently. People with special needs in an evacuation 

under this question include people who have physical, mental, cognitive, and developmental 

disabilities. 

The second question was to identify whether the plans describe provisions for people with 

special needs other than disabilities that may need additional assistance in an evacuation. This 

includes people in schools, day care centers, prisons and detention centers, and drug treatment 

centers. It also includes people with limited English proficiency and people who are transient 

such as tourists, seasonal workers, and the homeless. 

Overall for the first question, plans were rated as effective. Nursing homes, hospitals, and other 

institutions caring for disabled persons generally have evacuation plans that account for the 

unique needs of persons in those institutions. They have arrangements with transportation 

providers to evacuate residents and have plans for caring for those persons until they can be 

returned to the institution. Coordination of evacuation plans among the various hospitals, 

nursing home, and other institutions needs to be improved to assure that sufficient transportation 

and sheltering resources are available in the case of a mass evacuation. Coordination also needs 

to be improved between these plans and overall State and local evacuation plans. State and local 

officials should be aware of the hospital and nursing home evacuation plans to allow for 

coordination of supplies and other needs. 

Breakout of Key Elements Assessment - Special Needs

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Very

Effective

Effective Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Very

Effective

Effective Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Identify Requirements Distinct Populations

Percent of Plans Evaluated

Very High

High

Moderate

Low
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-26 

The GAO report on nursing homes also found that hospital and nursing home administrators are 

the key decision makers on patient evacuation. Although State and local governments can order 

evacuations, health care facilities are exempt and evacuate only if necessary. Issues such as the 

availability of a receiving facility; trained staff; and resources including food, water, electricity, 

and medicine; transportation; and communication systems are deciding factors for administrators 

on whether or not to evacuate. In addition, the nursing home must assess the risks of subjecting a 

medically frail person to the stress of an evacuation. During Hurricane Katrina, the destruction 

of communications systems left hospital and nursing home administrators unable to receive basic 

information, such as when assistance would arrive.39

While basic plans for evacuating sick and disabled persons in hospitals, nursing homes, and other 

institutions are generally effective, plans for evacuating disabled persons who are living 

independently are not as good. Identifying where these persons live is a challenge, and most 

plans are not specific on how they will meet the unique transportation and sheltering needs of 

these individuals. 

Special needs registries were mentioned in many of the State and local plans. One county 

mentioned a special needs registry, but did not include relevant documents or information to 

support the registry. The Alachua County, Florida plan reports that 450 special needs clients 

have pre-registered with the Emergency Management Office in order to ensure they will be 

evacuated during a catastrophic emergency. However, there are thousands of other people with 

special needs who are not registered. Their plan also includes three facilities that are already 

designated to serve as special needs shelters. In a recent presentation, Louisiana officials 

provided a plan to provide phone line registry for people with special needs. The presentation 

defined people with special needs as people with medical (including physical and mental) 

disabilities, people with no transportation, and transients. People can call a 311 information 

hotline giving their contact information, number of individuals needing to evacuate, and the 

special needs category (if applicable). Operators create a case file for the registrant and forward 

it for input into the database, which is updated weekly. Afterwards, a postcard is sent to the 

registrant including how and where to access transportation, procedures for calling back with 

information updates, and a supply list on what they can bring and what is prohibited. This 

database informs city planners with population information for the registered people with special 

needs40. 

For the second question on evacuating populations with other special needs, plans were rated as 

only partially effective. State plans reviewed have similar ways of addressing people with special 

needs. The plans generally address the issue of evacuating special needs groups, but most do not 

have detailed information on how to evacuate them, the different requirements of various special 

needs groups, or the additional resources that would be needed. Also, State plans have various 

definitions of the special needs population; some plans include one group and leave out other 

groups. A clear definition of the special needs population should be developed and used at the 

Federal, State, and local level, so that all populations will be included in evacuation plans. 

Mississippi and Florida have developed such systems, although they have differences in the 

groups they include. The needs of people with low English proficiency generally are not 

adequately addressed in most plans. Since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita showed that language 

barriers in the evacuation messages were a problem, the Gulf States are revising and/or 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-27 

expanding their plans and procedures to address communicating evacuation information in 

multiple languages to meet the needs of a growing diverse population. 

The Jefferson Davis Parish plan in Louisiana details the role of the transportation coordinator as 

a person who ensures incarcerated people have transportation. The plan also delineates law 

enforcement to assist in evacuating incarcerated inmates and dictates that the Parish agency 

responsible for emergency preparedness will coordinate the identification of non-English 

speaking persons. The plan for LaFourche Parish in Louisiana states that the school board is 

responsible for developing and exercising a student evacuation plan and the transportation officer 

is responsible for coordinating transport for school students and for children in day care centers. 

The school services officer evacuates and closes schools, and coordinates the use of school buses 

and drivers to support the overall evacuation effort. 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations 

People with Low English Proficiency: The article from the Gulfport, Mississippi, Sun Herald 

Newspaper, “Latinos Hope Next Warning Comes in Spanish,”41 describes the minimal disaster 

response efforts to help evacuate the Spanish-speaking community. A recent report from the 

National Council of La Raza cited many difficulties and delays in finding Red Cross volunteers 

who could speak Spanish. In response, the American Red Cross launched its first Spanishlanguage web site, and is actively hiring Latino volunteers and board members. ”The disaster 

response—both public and private— was a disaster for Latinos and other communities of color,’ 

said Janet Murgulia, president of the National Council of Raza...” For two days as Hurricane 

Katrina’s landfall loomed, Victoria Cintra, Director of the Mississippi Immigrants Rights 

Alliance, begged the television stations in the Gulfport area to let her broadcast evacuation 

messages in Spanish. The station broadcast Cintra's message only hours before landfall—perhaps 

too late for those within the broadcast area to evacuate to safety. 

People without Private Vehicles or Other Means of Transportation: This group is not 

addressed in plans as frequently as other special needs populations. During evacuations most 

people without personal vehicles carpool with neighbors, family or friends or, if possible, find 

other means of transportation. During Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana churches implemented 

Operation Brother’s Keeper, a program to help evacuate those who lacked transportation. The 

program is a pilot initiative that encourages faith-based congregations in the New Orleans area to 

match “empty seats” among their parishioners who own vehicles with those who do not. The 

long-term goal of the program is to alleviate some of the pressures on local public transit services 

during an evacuation. Although only a pilot program, Operation Brother’s Keeper evacuated 60 

percent of Jefferson Parish’s population that fell into this group.42

Operations 

The operations element in evacuation is the mobilization of resources to support the evacuation 

and implementation of the plan once an evacuation order is given. Coordination of the activities 

that agencies and organizations are responsible for during the evacuation is complex. The plans 

to manage the evacuation once it is underway must ensure the availability of public and private 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-28 

transport modes as well as the vehicles, drivers or operators, maintenance, fuel, security, and 

clear safe routes. The role of operations is to monitor the evacuation, manage the resources, and 

make adjustments in the application of those resources as the needs and conditions change. 

Managing traffic along evacuation routes involves monitoring conditions in real time and having 

the capabilities and resources to adjust traffic operational strategies to optimize throughput of 

evacuees. Traffic control strategies may entail traffic signal control timings that maximize traffic 

flow along evacuation corridors or using traveler information systems to allow evacuees to 

choose the best available routes or modes. 

Responsibility for operations during evacuation ranges from the local parish or county to the 

State and Federal levels, depending on the scale of the evacuation. Often initiated at the local 

parish or county level, operations can be escalated to the State and Federal levels if the 

magnitude of an evacuation overwhelms the local capabilities and resources available. 

Current Guidelines and Practices 

In the NRP, the command structure, ESF-1 responsibilities, and ICS provide the operational 

structure for Federal participation in a mass evacuation. SLG 101 provides guidance to State and 

local emergency managers on operational factors in the evacuation annex and the hazard-unique 

annex on hurricanes. For example, SLG 101 calls for emergency managers to prepare an 

inventory of vehicle resources (public and private buses, public works trucks, commercial bus 

companies, trucking companies, truck rental companies, rail services, marine/ferry, air services, 

and ambulance services). It also recognizes the importance of directing and controlling traffic 

during emergency operations; assisting in the evacuation of people at risk in and around the 

emergency scene; and controlling access to the scene of the emergency or area that has been 

evacuated. Both the NRP and SLG 101 recommend training and exercises to test and improve 

plans; exercises are an important tool to find and fill gaps and shortcomings in written plans 

before an actual event. 

Assessment of Current Plans 

The assessment of the operational elements of evacuation plans for the Gulf Coast states is based 

on four questions. These criteria and rankings for the plans that were reviewed are summarized 

in Table 4-6. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-29 

Table 4-6: Operations Questions and Assessment Results 

Operations 

Assessment Question 

O1 Does the plan include provisions to ensure availability of public and commercial 

transport modes and necessary transport operators? 

O2 

Does the plan describe the safe and practical transportation modes that will be used to 

move evacuees that cannot transport themselves (other than special needs 

populations)? 

O3 Does the plan identify evacuation routes? 

O4 Does the plan address the use of contraflow measures? 

Figure 4-7 shows the assessment ratings for the operations key element, with breakouts provided 

for its four questions—all modes, transportation alternatives, evacuation routes, and contraflow. 

Figure 4-7: Operations Assessment Ratings 

The first question assessed whether the plans included provisions to monitor evacuation 

operations of motorized transport, rail, air, water, and other modes of transportation to determine 

the adequacy of available resources. It also assessed whether the plans addressed contingency 

plans for obtaining additional evacuee transport vehicles, as needed. Another aspect assessed is 

how well the plans provided for coordination among jurisdictions to prevent over-tasking of 

transportation resources, particularly where neighboring jurisdictions also require support from 

the same resource provider. This question also looked at whether the plans addressed 

coordination with the next higher level of government (local to State, and State to Federal) to 

help fulfill unmet transportation resource needs to support evacuations. Lastly, this question 

Breakout of Key Elements Assessment - Operations

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Very Effective

Effective

Partially Effective

Marginally Effective

Very Effective

Effective

Partially Effective

Marginally Effective

Very Effective

Effective

Partially Effective

Marginally Effective

Very Effective

Effective

Partially Effective

Marginally Effective

All Modes Transportation Alternatives Evacuation Routes Contraflow

Percent of Plans Evaluated

Very High

High

Moderate

Low

Moderate 

25% 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-30 

evaluated how effectively the plans addressed the use of standby contracts with motor coach 

companies, paratransit providers, ambulance companies, railroads, air carriers, etc. to obtain 

drivers and vehicles to fill identified transportation shortfalls. 

The second question focused on assessing how well the plans addressed coordination with the 

agencies and organizations that are tasked to provide transportation resources. Specifically, it 

looked at whether the plans provisioned for the use of public transit vehicles, school buses, 

paratransit vehicles, non-government agency vehicles such as church buses, and volunteer group 

vehicles as alternative transportation options. In addition, the question examined whether the 

plans included provisions for identifying accommodations for the transport of luggage, etc., and 

how evacuees are informed about any restrictions or limitations for transportation. Lastly, this 

question reviewed whether the plans addressed provisions for transporting evacuees to pick-up 

points and staging areas. 

The third question assessed whether the plans required evacuation routes to be designated, 

marked, and communicated to the public. It also looked at whether the plans addressed the safety 

of evacuation routes (roads, bridges, railways, waterways, airstrips, etc.). Another important 

aspect focused on whether the plans identified any provisions to monitor traffic conditions on the 

evacuation routes and to make operational adjustments as appropriate to maximize evacuation 

throughput. The assessment also checked if the plans required that critical operational changes be 

communicated to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the public. This question also 

considered whether the plans identified provisions to control access to evacuation routes and 

manage traffic flow. In this context, the question evaluated how well the plans addressed 

strategies and responsibilities for maintaining evacuation route capacity, especially with regard 

to work zones, toll collection, and accidents/incidents. This question also checked whether the 

plans identified a system for notifying and coordinating with neighboring jurisdictions about 

what routes will be used and when. Another important aspect is whether the plans addressed 

strategies and responsibilities for providing food, water, restrooms, fueling stations, and rest 

stations along the evacuation routes. Lastly, the assessment checked whether the plans included 

any lists of resources that would support the evacuation routes. 

The fourth and final question within this key element focused on contraflow-related aspects. 

Specifically, the assessment first looked for any specific contraflow plans that have been 

developed and coordinated with all affected parties. The evaluation examined whether the 

contraflow plans addressed any strategies for emergency responders, transit vehicles, and other 

essential equipment to move inbound against the predominant outbound flow. The review 

assessed how well the plans addressed communicating information to the public about the 

contraflow measures and the beginning and ending times for contraflow operations. The review 

also looked to see whether the plans identified a system for communicating and coordinating 

contraflow operations with neighboring jurisdictions. Lastly, the assessment checked whether the 

plans indicated that the contraflow plans have been tested in an exercise, drill, or a real 

evacuation. 

With regards to ensuring availability of public and private transport modes and necessary 

transport operators, overall, the plans were rated as effective. Nearly two-thirds of the plans 

reviewed fared well with respect to addressing provisions for monitoring the various modes of 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-31 

transportation to be used during an evacuation, as well as contingency arrangements necessary 

for obtaining transportation vehicles to help evacuate people that need transportation assistance. 

While most plans provide enough details about coordination with the next higher level of 

government, most did not cover the aspect of coordination with neighboring jurisdictions that 

may compete for common resources. In addition, limited information is provided in the plans 

addressing the use of standby contracts with private motor coach companies, paratransit 

providers, ambulance companies, railroads, and air carriers. 

The majority of the plans effectively addressed coordination with transportation resource 

providers. While most plans for urban areas included transit buses, many local plans rely on 

school buses to provide transportation for those without personal vehicles. A few plans 

mentioned the use of school buses only in the context of identifying or helping the special needs 

population at hospitals and nursing homes. While some plans did address the use of nongovernment agency vehicles such as church buses, many plans did not since community and 

faith-based organizations may be utilizing their limited resources to transport their membership 

to safety during evacuations or they may not have access to those resources. Most plans did not 

identify any restrictions or limitations on what evacuees can bring aboard the public 

transportation vehicles. Nearly two-thirds of the plans addressed the designation of pick-up 

points or staging areas for transportation-dependent evacuees, but most did not address 

provisions for transporting evacuees to the designated pick-up points or staging areas. 

Overall, the plans were rated effective with respect to evacuation routes. The evacuation routes 

are generally identified and illustrated within the plans and often posted on agencies’ Web sites, 

and most jurisdictions provide a pamphlet or flyer for public distribution. However, the plans did 

not explicitly require evacuation routes to be marked. Some of the plans address the safety of 

routes (roads and bridges) but not other modes of transportation. Nearly two-thirds of the plans 

referred to the aspect of monitoring traffic conditions on the evacuation routes, but most did not 

include any provisions for making operational adjustments (based on monitored traffic 

conditions) as appropriate to maximize throughput. Nearly two-thirds of the plans require that 

critical operational changes be communicated to the EOC and the public. The majority of the 

plans addressed evacuation routes access control, but many of them did not include provisions to 

enhance traffic flow on designated routes. The responsibilities to ensure that evacuation routes 

function at maximum capacity are generally addressed in the plans, but no details on specific 

strategies to achieve this are included. The plans generally addressed coordination with 

neighboring jurisdictions with regard to the usage of routes for evacuation. However, sustained 

inter-jurisdictional coordination between at-risk and “host” jurisdictions along or near the 

evacuation corridors was not addressed in any detail. Although the plans generally identified the 

need to provide food, water, restroom facilities, and fuel along evacuation routes, they did not 

address strategies and responsibilities for providing these services. Also, plans generally did not 

identify other service needs that may apply specifically to special needs populations, such as 

meeting the needs of service animals. Finally, most plans did not address a region-wide approach 

to evacuation and did not identify any listing of resources to provide support to evacuees along 

the evacuation routes. 

With respect to contraflow, Alabama uses a detailed contraflow plan with itemized checklists, 

alternate routes, and detailed charts laying out operational strategies. Florida’s contraflow plan, 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-32 

The New Orleans flood plain maps are now out of date. New Orleans has 30,000 indigent workers 

without transportation and 60,000 people living in trailers who need to be evacuated for tropical 

storms. 

which is the responsibility of the Florida Highway Patrol, addresses seven major highways and 

suspends toll collections during evacuations. Unlike Alabama’s contraflow plan, Florida has 

never implemented its plan. The other Gulf Coast States also have developed and executed 

contraflow plans. Most local plans did not refer to these State-level contraflow plans. Although 

contraflow operations are implemented and managed at the State level, it is important for local 

plans to incorporate information pertaining to contraflow operations in their plans, since 

contraflow route access begins, passes through, and terminates in local jurisdictions, affecting 

local transportation operations. Therefore, it is not evident from the plan reviews whether the 

contraflow strategies were developed and coordinated with the local jurisdictions. In addition, 

most contraflow plans did not address strategies for inbound emergency services traffic, 

communicating contraflow operations information to the public, and coordinating contraflow 

operations with neighboring jurisdictions, as well as their verification and validation. So even 

though the states had contraflow plans, this question is rated overall as marginally effective.

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations 

Evacuation of People without Personal Vehicles: Most states and local plans did well in 

assigning responsibilities within the agencies and organizations responsible for operations. 

However, alternate modes of transport in evacuation operations other than private vehicles were 

poorly addressed in some jurisdictions. Tens of thousands of people were stranded after 

Hurricane Katrina. Because some local jurisdictions had not made plans for other modes, trained 

their staff, designated staging areas, or prepared the public ahead of time, they were sometimes 

unable to effectively use the buses or trains provided through the ESF-1 program. There will be 

more people on the Gulf Coast who do not have transportation, which means that jurisdictions 

will need to use more buses, perhaps from more school systems or private providers farther 

away, and thus will have to put the plans in motion earlier. 

Effective Contracting of Transportation Resources: Following Hurricane Katrina, Clay 

County, Florida, reviewed the nursing home emergency plans and discovered that they all had 

the same transportation vendor. Realizing the potential for a shortage, a directive was issued to 

require each nursing home to identify a secondary transportation provider. Pinellas County, 

Florida, solves the potential problem of too much demand for transportation resources by 

providing transit and school buses as well as ambulances to its facilities. 

As part of its preparations for the 2006 hurricane season, the State of Texas has signed 

agreements with out-of-state bus companies to ensure that 1,100 additional buses are available to 

the State to supplement the resources already procured at the State and local level. State officials 

selected bus companies that were not already contracted to provide emergency transportation for 

other States in the Gulf Coast region to ensure that the buses would be available for use in Texas. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-33 

En Route Services During Evacuation: During the 2005 hurricane season evacuations in 

Florida and Texas, the need for services along evacuation routes became more evident. One of 

the primary resources needed by evacuees was fuel. In Florida, the Road Ranger service patrol 

used to assist motorists with daily incidents along major roadways was overwhelmed by 

evacuees seeking fuel from the limited supplies that they carry on their trucks. During Hurricane 

Rita, so many people evacuated in Texas that not only did they need fuel, but also water, ice, 

restrooms and medical services due to the long time people were in traffic during the evacuation. 

As a result of these experiences, both Florida and Texas are updating their plans to provide better 

en route services to evacuees. Specifically, in Governor Perry’s Executive Order RP57 in Texas, 

he directed “the Texas Department of Transportation to coordinate with the Texas Oil and Gas 

Association and other industry partners to develop a plan to address fuel availability along major 

evacuation routes and establish a fuel operations function in the State Operations Center to 

coordinate the distribution of fuel prior to and during evacuations” (see Appendix G for the full 

text). 

In addition, during the meeting with State officials in Texas as part of this project, they indicated 

that they are also working on a plan for “aid stations” on evacuation routes to provide not only 

fuel but also other essential services such as water, ice, restrooms, and emergency medical 

services along primary evacuation routes. 

Filling Up Before the Storm Applies to Government Assets as Well: Throughout the Gulf 

States, governments learned that in the presence of market disruptions to the fuel supply, the 

need to conserve and protect fuel assets for government vehicles and generators is important. 

Texas State officials met with industry representatives, and they agreed to form a fuel operations 

group as part of the private sector response. The private sector has taken on the responsibility to 

get the fuel storage tanks at gasoline stations filled up 92 hours before the storm to ensure an 

adequate supply.43 During Katrina, one Mississippi county Emergency Manager had the 

foresight to coordinate with his colleagues in the school system to top off the tanks at the school 

bus farm, and to locate a generator at the farm for the exclusive use of emergency vehicles.44

Best Practices 

Behind every successful evacuation is a continual improvement process through which plans are 

modified based on lessons learned in exercises and experiences in prior evacuations. The State 

of Alabama’s Department of Transportation (ALDOT) developed its contraflow plan for 

Interstate 65 (I-65) several years ago, including a step-by-step checklist that ALDOT, the 

Alabama Department of Public Safety (ADPS), Alabama Emergency Management Agency 

(AEMA), and other stakeholders utilize to implement the plan. Each year, ALDOT, ADPS, and 

AEMA exercise this plan prior to hurricane season to test its systems and serve as a refresher for 

those who have responsibilities if and when the plan is implemented. In addition, Alabama 

officials have worked to incorporate the lessons learned and identify additional gaps that need to 

be addressed from implementing the plan in advance of the landfalls of Hurricanes Ivan and 

Dennis.
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-34 

Sheltering 

Sheltering evacuees is a major concern of government officials and emergency responders prior 

to, during, and after a catastrophe. Although the majority of evacuees will stay with family, 

friends, or at hotels/motels rather than at public shelters, the availability of public shelters is 

critical to the success of an evacuation. Even those who have other places to stay often find that 

they must spend the night in shelters while en route to their final destinations because 

hotels/motels along evacuation routes are full and they must rest during their trip. Public shelters 

are particularly important for some special needs groups including low income households that 

cannot afford alternative temporary housing. Just as various special needs groups have different 

transportation requirements, they also have different sheltering requirements that must be 

anticipated and planned for in advance of an evacuation. 

An important issue that came to light during evacuations associated with Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita is the need for public transportation operators to know where they are going to take 

evacuees and for officials in these locations to be prepared to accept the evacuees. 

Transportation operators cannot assume that evacuees can be dropped off anywhere, especially 

railroads that carry many more passengers than individual buses. 

This analysis assessed sheltering plans in the Gulf Coast region, as well as plans in the 

neighboring States of Oklahoma, Georgia, and Tennessee. In addition, Arkansas provided its 

response to the Nationwide Plan Review for DHS. These States are among those that can expect 

to receive large numbers of evacuees when a catastrophic incident requires evacuation from the 

Gulf Coast States. 

Current Guidelines and Practices 

Numerous provisions in SLG 101 directly relate to sheltering. SLG 101 recommends mutual-aid 

agreements with neighboring jurisdictions for mass care staff and for facilities to shelter 

evacuees. This guidance also addresses the need to notify evacuees, emergency managers, and 

shelter operators about alternate shelter locations and to provide updates on the availability of 

space at each shelter. The goal is to ensure that emergency managers and evacuees know the 

location and availability of shelters outside the risk area. SLG 101 also addresses provisions for 

the care of animals and recommends specific responsibilities that evacuation coordinators, public 

information officers, the Animal Care and Control Agency, and mass care coordinators have for 

ensuring the evacuation, sheltering, care, and protection of all animals. 

Assessment of Current Plans 

A comprehensive evacuation plan not only identifies locations of designated shelters, but also 

addresses transportation of evacuees to shelter locations, attending to the special needs of 

evacuees, establishment of mutual aid agreements across local governments and States to 

maximize shelter capacity, and care and protection of animals. In order to achieve greater 

community response to and compliance with evacuations, it is important that sheltering needs be 

adequately addressed. Four main questions were used to assess the extent to which State and 

local evacuation plans address essential sheltering considerations. The results of the plan 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-35 

assessments are summarized in Table 4-7. Some discussion of host State shelter plans is included 

at the end of this section. 

Table 4-7: Sheltering Questions and Assessment Results 

Sheltering Considerations 

Assessment Question 

S1 Does the plan require the establishment of mutual aid agreements with other 

jurisdictions to formalize access to and use of shelters? 

S2 

Does the plan include provisions for informing shelter operations and evacuees about 

the locations of public shelters outside of the evacuation area and their status (i.e., full, 

accepting evacuees, accepting evacuees with pets, special needs shelters, etc.)? 

S3 Does the plan address strategies and responsibilities for shelter operations? 

S4 Does the plan include provisions for the care and protection of animals? 

Figure 4-8 shows the assessment ratings for the sheltering key element, with breakouts provided 

for its four questions—mutual aid, availability and status, accountability, and animals. 

Figure 4-8: Sheltering Assessment Ratings 

The first question assessed whether plans include mutual-aid agreements with other jurisdictions 

to formalize access to and use of shelters. The plans were further analyzed to determine whether 

they include the capacity of available space at various shelters and a process for notification and 

coordination with external entities for shelter activation and operations. 

Breakout of Key Elements Assessment - Sheltering

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Very Effective

Effective

Partially Effective

Marginally Effective

Very Effective

Effective

Partially Effective

Marginally Effective

Very Effective

Effective

Partially Effective

Marginally Effective

Very Effective

Effective

Partially Effective

Marginally Effective

Mutual Aid Availability & Status Accountability Animals

Percent of Plans Evaluated

Very High

High

Moderate

Low
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-36 

The second question assessed how the location and status of shelters outside the evacuation area 

is communicated to shelter operators and evacuees. Plans were evaluated to see whether they 

addressed how frequently shelter information should be updated, how information on the status 

of public and non-public shelters would be collected and communicated to evacuees, how shelter 

operators would be informed about the location and status of alternate shelter sites, and how 

shelter locations would be marked. 

The third question judged plans on the extent to which they addressed strategies and 

responsibilities for shelter operations. Plans were examined to see whether they contained 

specific requirements that shelters provide food, water, sanitation, first aid and mental support, 

sufficient security, disaster welfare information, and resources for special needs populations. 

The fourth question assessed whether plans contained provisions for the care and protection of 

animals. Such provisions include policies for sheltering pets, a communication process to inform 

the public of locations of shelters accepting pets, and measures to identify and evacuate other 

animals, including those on farms and in kennels or zoos. 

Analysis of the Gulf Coast region’s plans indicates that they address sheltering issues in general, 

but many provide little specific information on issues included in the evaluation questions. 

Overall, the plans were rated as effective or partially effective on each of the four questions 

reviewed. Some jurisdictions only identify locations of public shelters that may provide housing 

to evacuees, but do not address other factors such as transportation to shelters and the services at 

the shelters for people with special needs. 

The majority of plans have established mutual-aid agreements with other jurisdictions, but it is 

often challenging to obtain information, including shelter locations and status updates, from 

other jurisdictions or agencies once an evacuation is underway. Therefore, while mutual-aid 

agreements have been established, the efficacy of such agreements may be tenuous during mass 

evacuations. 

While most plans account for sufficient sheltering space to house large numbers of evacuees, 

they did not provide a worst-case scenario estimate of the number of evacuees who might require 

shelter, nor did they specify the capacities of public shelter spaces. Furthermore, the few plans 

that did provide shelter capacities, provided estimates that accounted for less than 10 percent of 

the area’s vulnerable population. Clearly, it is critical for plans to be revised to reflect estimates 

that take worst-case evacuation scenarios into account. 

The sheltering plans generally do not specifically include plans for catastrophic incidents and do 

not have contingency plans and strategies to adjust their plans when shelter needs change. State 

and local plans generally rely on local chapters of the American Red Cross, the lead organization 

responsible for ESF-6 functions (Mass Care), and other volunteer groups to identify and staff 

emergency shelters. However, some note coordination and communication problems with these 

volunteer groups and that shelter locations, capacity, and capabilities may be changed by a 

volunteer group without notifying the State’s EOC. Volunteer organizations are relied upon to 

identify and manage shelter resources. Greater coordination and communication with the 

sheltering organizations must be fostered to ensure that shelters are adequately equipped to 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-37 

manage all types of evacuation populations. Recently, Governor Riley requested direct 

reimbursement for equipping shelters that will be run by the State of Alabama to help fill the 

gaps that volunteer organizations, including the American Red Cross, may have.45 

Most of the plans included provisions for keeping shelter operators informed on the location and 

status of alternate shelters. However, most plans lacked specific provisions for communicating 

timely status updates and locations of public shelters outside the evacuation area to evacuees. 

Some plans indicate that such information will be communicated, but do not describe how the 

information will be communicated. Where the means of communications are noted, they 

typically include radio, television, and/or Web sites. Television and Internet access generally 

would not be available to evacuees who are on the road. Contingency plans are needed to 

manage information sharing in a major disaster. Mississippi reported that after Hurricane 

Katrina, there were widespread and prolonged power outages that required emergency operations 

staff to pass out brochures at public gathering places on the locations and status of shelters as 

other traditional means to communicate were unavailable. 

 

Few of the plans address how to acquire updates on or inform the public about the availability of 

space in non-public shelters, such as hotels. Additionally, few of the plans address marking 

shelters. While some plans require that evacuation routes be marked, shelters often are not 

located along those evacuation routes. Overall, plans need to include provisions for 

communicating shelter availability status updates and shelter locations to the public and for 

marking the routes and physical locations of shelters. 

Sheltering provisions for special needs populations are discussed in the majority of plans. 

Several jurisdictions have taken the lead in including such provisions, and some are in the 

process of rewriting plans to broaden the definition of special needs to include other groups, such 

as those who are economically disadvantaged. Other plans identify the need to have large 

generators in special need shelters, since medical equipment and essential climate control 

systems require power. While many plans discuss special needs populations and are in the 

process of broadening the definition, provisions for sheltering of special needs populations were 

not discussed in any of the plans. Refuges of last resort are mentioned in nearly half the plans, 

but without any detail. 

Plans generally do not include provisions for sheltering pets and service animals. The American 

Red Cross reports that it cannot accept pets in shelters because of State health and safety 

regulations. They do allow service animals that assist people with disabilities in American Red 

Cross shelters. Those plans that do mention care of pets, only provide broad guidance for 

accommodating them. They do not provide specific guidance for service animals that aid people 

who are visually and hearing impaired. In Collier County, Florida, the evacuation plan contains 

extensive details on caring for pets and farm and wild animals prior to, during, and after 

evacuations. Specifically, the plan contains an annex that addresses pets and animals by 

providing information to the general public about hotels that accept pets within the County as 

well as throughout the State, and picking up animals from emergency shelters. It also identifies 

multiple mutual-aid agreements for the sheltering of pets. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-38 

There were thousands of household pets that were sheltered during Hurricane Rita as part of the 

evacuation. The significant number of animals requiring shelter and the number of evacuees 

who are pet owners emphasizes the need for plans to include provisions for animals and 

eliminate situations where owners must choose between evacuating to safety and staying with 

their pets in hazardous conditions. Some jurisdictions are considering options such as opening 

pet shelters near or adjacent to human shelters, space for animal cages on evacuation buses when 

feasible, and a standardized tracking and identification system for pets.

In addition to the five Gulf Coast states, four other neighboring host states were evaluated 

against questions that focused on the sheltering of evacuees. Georgia, Oklahoma, and Tennessee 

provided complete plans, and Arkansas provided their DHS National Plan Review response.

The questions used to assess the host states’ sheltering plans are derived from questions for the 

Gulf State evaluations. The factors of greatest concern are keeping shelter information current 

during the evacuation, and coordination and communication with the impacted States on the 

timing and status of the evacuation including how long evacuees will require shelter and 

transportation of evacuees from train, bus, and airports to host shelters. 

Several supporting host State attributes are needed for the implementation of a host sheltering 

plan. Those host State attributes require a plan to provide resource listing and capabilities to 

support shelter operations (e.g., food, water, sanitation, housing, security, welfare information, 

first aid and mental health) and trained personnel to support shelter management operations, and 

the plan must address special needs populations. 

In addition, the host State factor attributes require a plan to provide an estimate of the number of 

evacuees that can be sheltered, the availability of non-public shelter such as hotels, a policy with 

respect to bringing service animals and pets to shelters and routes to the shelters, and that the 

shelters are marked. 

Generally, the plans do not anticipate supporting evacuations as a host. In fact, one of the plans 

has several statements such as evacuations “within the boundaries of the State.” Furthermore, 

the plans do not address coordination and communication with the impacted States. The plans 

do, however, provide for a national response at the direction of the President of the United 

States, that could include the implementation of sheltering plans and initiatives to support an 

impacted State. Many of the Gulf Coast State plans evaluated, identified their States as possible 

hosts for sheltering other communities, counties, and States. 

The host State plans did address special needs populations and strategies and responsibilities for 

shelter operations, including food, water, sanitation, housing, security, welfare information, first 

aid, and mental health care at their respective shelters. 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations 

Provisions for Pets: During Hurricane Katrina, many residents did not evacuate because people 

wanted to take care of their pets and refused to evacuate without them. Plans for evacuating and 

sheltering people were labeled inadequate because provisions for pets were largely not taken into 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-39 

consideration. However, extra provisions were taken during Hurricane Rita, where pets were 

allowed to evacuate with their owners and provided with special guidance. Shelter operators in 

other States are reexamining their policies with respect to accommodating pets. 

Sister Cities. Cities throughout Texas are piloting a Sister Cities Program that would designate 

Austin as Galveston’s host, San Antonio’s as Corpus Christi’s, etc. While these destinations 

would not be mandatory, it will help strengthen the planning and operations of shelters in these 

host communities.46

Planning Beyond 72 Hours. During most evacuations, shelters are designed to be open 72 

hours. In the case of a catastrophe like Katrina, people may need to stay longer because they 

cannot go home. This poses a challenge for already stretched resources—staff, many of whom 

are volunteers, need to be relieved, supplies replenished, and services expanded so that evacuees 

can begin to deal with longer dislocations.47

Volunteers: Tens of thousands of volunteers from the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, 

and many religious organizations mobilized volunteers to provide critical sheltering services in 

the Gulf Coast region and to evacuees across the country. For example, Citizen Corps 

coordinated volunteer efforts throughout the country, with more than 14,000 Citizen Corps 

volunteers from all 50 States and the District of Columbia actively involved in response and 

recovery efforts across America. The Harris County, Texas, Citizen Corps Council brought 

together an enormous number of volunteers to support the American Red Cross, and staffed 

evacuation centers throughout Houston. The Council processed over 8,000 volunteers in one day, 

and an average of 3,500 per day overall. These volunteers allowed for the creation of an actual 

city (with its own zip code) for nearly 25,000 Louisiana evacuees sheltering in the Houston 

Reliant Astrodome. They were successful because they had coordinated ahead of time with local 

businesses and volunteer groups, and because they were familiar with and implemented elements 

of the ICS.48 Additionally, more than 300 Arkansas Citizen Corps volunteers assisted over 9,000 

evacuees being housed at Fort Chaffee, the National Guard/U.S. Army Reserves Training Center 

in Sebastian County, in providing care at a medical center where 2,200 evacuees received 

medical attention in the first 48 hours and managing dining facilities and an off-site donations 

collection center.49

Best Practices 

A key component of Florida’s State Emergency Response Team (SERT) is its use of GIS 

technology. One way that SERT uses GIS is to collect and provide information about open and 

closed shelters throughout the State to responders, government officials, and the public. 

The Florida State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) Mapper Program allows the SERT staff 

to use the GIS to remain current on events as they unfold and obtain information about locations 

of shelters, logistics areas, and command posts. This program is unique in that it provides for 

one-site storage and dissemination of emergency management and law-enforcement data to the 

State and county EOCs, responders in the field who can share this information with the public 

via variable message boards and other communications channels, as well as to the public 

website. This allows staff at all levels to make decisions based on the same set of data and the 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-40 

public to be kept well-informed of the evacuation process, including danger areas and evacuation 

zones and routes. 

At the present time, one can access the SEOC Mapper database via 

http://www.eoconline.org/EM_Live/shelter.nsf to view a list of open and closed shelters, the 

availability of space at special needs shelters, and other relevant details. The longitude and 

latitude coordinates of shelters are pre-populated to allow for quicker updating. County officials 

may choose to input updated data about shelter availability via the Web or by calling the SEOC 

where the GIS team can enter information directly into the database. This information is updated 

frequently during a disaster, assisting emergency managers, first responders, and the public in 

receiving the important information they need about the availability of shelters. The SERT GIS 

team is working now to implement improvements to the SEOC Mapper database to make the 

program more user-friendly for emergency managers, first responders, and the public. 

Mass Evacuation Training and Exercises 

A well-developed training and exercise program is a 

critical element of overall readiness and 

preparedness for mass evacuations. Training 

ensures personnel are prepared for their roles. 

Exercises test the capabilities and resources of the 

agencies, and when a number of cooperating 

agencies and jurisdictions are included, they also 

test and strengthen working relationships. Training 

and exercises to test and improve plans for an 

evacuation from a catastrophic incident are 

especially important because of the large number of 

agencies and jurisdictions involved in such an 

evacuation. 

Emergency management agencies need trained 

people, who have experience working together with 

colleagues and counterparts in other levels of 

government prior to a disaster, as a part of 

emergency response teams. Emergency responders 

should not meet each other for the first time 

immediately before, during, or after a major 

catastrophe. The coordination of the multiple 

agencies involved is not simple, and the integration 

of multiple jurisdictions, agencies, States and NGOs 

is very difficult to practice. Tabletop exercises, 

seminars and other exercises can be done to help 

agencies delineate and coordinate responsibilities, 

and a coordinated exercise program can help 

prepare planners, responders, and agencies at all 

levels of government to respond to a disaster of the 

Training: A process to learn a new skill or 

job. Training can be accomplished through 

classroom instruction, coursework, 

independent study, on-the-job training, and 

exercises. 

Exercise: Practice situations to improve 

skills and procedures. 

Table-Top Exercise: An exercise 

conducted in a seminar format that allows 

senior leaders and staff to examine and 

discuss issues in a controlled environment. 

Full-Scale Exercise: An exercise that fully 

implements a plan or process. 

Computer-Assisted Exercise: Exercises 

designed to incorporate simulations and to 

train leaders without the manpower 

requirements of a full-scale exercise. 

Hot Wash: A facilitated discussion 

immediately after a training event or 

exercise in which training audience 

members discuss issues and lessons 

learned and begin the process of 

incorporating change. 

After-Action Report: An assessment and 

report on the results of an exercise. It 

should include a list of findings, lessons 

learned, and recommendations to 

strengthen and improve procedures and 

processes. 

Figure 4-8: Training Definitions 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-41 

“Coordinating all of those agencies isn’t a 

simple thing and [is] very difficult to 

practice. We sit down and do tabletop 

exercises where we go over who’s going to 

do what, but a disaster of this magnitude is 

something that is very difficult to simulate 

or really practice. So, we rely on really 

well-trained, capable people that can adapt 

and adjust to whatever the situation is to 

get the job done.” 

Colonel Richard Bachmann, 

U.S. Air Force 

During evacuation operations supporting 

Hurricane Katrina

magnitude of Hurricane Katrina. This creates a need 

to rely on well-trained, capable people that adapt 

and adjust to the situation in order to get the job 

done. An effective, integrated exercise and training 

program enables better preparation and response to 

large-scale disasters. 

NIMS defines the preparedness cycle as “planning, 

training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and 

taking action to correct and mitigate.” Exercises 

play an important role in this broad preparedness 

cycle. Exercises provide opportunities for Federal, 

State, and local leaders; homeland security officials; 

and emergency responders to practice and test 

capabilities that have been built up through an overlapping structure of planning, training, and 

equipment purchases. Exercises inform preparedness priorities by highlighting potential 

preparedness shortfalls prior to real incidents. These priorities then become the basis for future 

funding, training, and equipment purchases, which become the basis for future exercises. 

Current Guidelines and Practices 

The NRP recognizes the critical importance of training and requires training throughout the plan. 

The NRP calls for training and exercises for individual managers and staff, as well as for 

government agencies, the private sector, and the NGOs involved in emergency response. 

Training is also a function of the ongoing management and maintenance of emergency 

management plans. The NRP requires training for key positions. The Federal government 

participates with State and local jurisdictions in exercises that include mass evacuation response. 

SLG 101 addresses training in detail and recommends training and exercises that model the 

planning and operations of an emergency management plan to prepare management and staff to 

meet their responsibilities. Training helps emergency response personnel to learn their 

responsibilities and to acquire the skills necessary to perform assigned tasks. Exercising provides 

a means to validate plans, checklists, and response procedures and to evaluate the skills of 

response personnel. 

A broad range of training and exercise programs are available nationwide from government 

agencies, associations, and private trainers, and includes much more than just classroom training. 

Figure 4-8 defines some of the types of training and terms used by the emergency management 

community. Training and exercises that specifically address catastrophic or mass evacuations 

are limited. Few of these courses include mass evacuation as an element except for courses 

directed toward response to incidents near nuclear reactor sites. Many jurisdictions conduct 

disaster response exercises without including key transportation agencies such as State and local 

highway departments and/or police departments that would be managing the flow of traffic or 

setting up contraflow operations. Transit agencies and school bus operators are not often 

included in the exercises, even though some of the plans of local jurisdictions include these 

vehicles as resources for an evacuation. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-42 

Assessment of Current Plans 

In examining State and local plans for training and exercises, plan reviewers looked for evidence 

of a training and exercise program, and how that was integrated in that jurisdiction. 

Additionally, reviewers looked for how the plans were updated and improved based upon lessons 

learned through exercises or after-action reports from actual events. The questions used for the 

assessment and overall ranking of the State and local plans in the gulf coast region reviewed for 

this study are listed in Table 4-8. 

Table 4-8: Training and Exercises Questions and Assessment Ratings 

Mass Evacuation Training and Exercises 

Assessment Question 

T1 

Does the plan include provisions for training a volunteer cadre to support shelter 

management operations, transport of evacuees, and first aid stations along the 

evacuation routes, etc.? 

T2 Does the plan require periodic reviews and updates of the plan, exercises, and after 

action reports as part of the planning process? 

Figure 4-9 shows the assessment ratings for the training key element, with breakouts provided 

for its two questions—volunteers and continual improvement. 

Figure 4-9: Training and Exercises Assessment Ratings 

In a catastrophic incident, emergency response agencies rely on assistance from a range of 

volunteer groups such as the American Red Cross, public service organizations, and church 

Breakout of Key Elements Assessment - Training

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Very

Effective

Effective Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Very

Effective

Effective Partially

Effective

Marginally

Effective

Volunteers Continual Improvement

Percent of Plans Evaluated

Very High

High

Moderate

Low
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-43 

groups. Volunteer groups provide essential “surge capacity” for emergency response agencies in 

a catastrophic incident. The assessment also examined whether the plans included provisions for 

training a volunteer cadre to support shelter management operations, transport of evacuees, and 

first aid stations along the evacuation routes, and other functions. 

State and local jurisdictions in the Gulf Coast region that were reviewed for this study had 

training and exercise programs for their first responders including police, fire, and emergency 

medical services, and they were rated as very effective. Most of this training is focused on 

meeting day-to-day missions for emergency and disaster response in their communities. Very 

few jurisdictions had training that focused on mass evacuation or on issues that cross 

jurisdictional boundaries. 

All of the States examined for this report indicate a commitment to an exercise, drill, and training 

program. Alabama conducts or participates in approximately 50 training exercises each year 

ranging from “table-top,” classroom-like discussions to full-scale exercises involving all 

members of the emergency management community, including Federal, State, and local 

officials.50 It is not feasible to test mass evacuation plans through full-scale drills because they 

would be too disruptive to the public. Several of the States, however, regularly include table-top 

exercises to test their procedures and processes and include representatives from transportation 

agencies. Orange County, Florida, has a detailed exercise program, with a system for 

incorporating lessons learned as needed, which is discussed later in this section. 

In addition, there is a critical need to conduct a series of integrated exercises involving Federal, 

State, and local agencies; NGOs; and other related organizations in the Gulf Coast region to 

improve the response to the 2005 hurricane season, identify and implement improvements to 

existing evacuation plans and procedures, and test the improvements prior to the 2006 hurricane 

season. It is essential that Federal response agencies and the Gulf Coast State and local 

jurisdictions coordinate their efforts and institute a series of planning events and exercises to 

identify immediate coordination and preparedness improvements that will have an immediate 

impact on preparedness. In the spring of 2006, DHS sponsored a Gulf Coast Hurricane 

Preparedness Exercise series in coordination with the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Alabama, and Florida, in an effort to validate the revised coordination and response plans and 

improve preparedness, should another catastrophic storm strike during the 2006 hurricane 

season.

Integrated training opportunities that cross jurisdictional borders (e.g., county, parish, or State) 

were not referenced in discussion, other than attendance at regional seminars or training 

conducted by the Federal government. Florida conducts an annual statewide exercise prior to 

each hurricane season and involves all appropriate State agencies and multiple county and 

municipal agencies in the area impacted by the training scenario. Integrated training at the State 

level was not discussed in any detail. This includes Gulf Coast State participation in regional 

conferences to review hurricane response. All of the Gulf Coast States participated in a recent 

February 2006 conference in Orlando, Florida, on contraflow operations sponsored by the 

Florida Department of Transportation. At this conference, that was supported in part by the 

FHWA, States shared strategies, techniques, and lessons learned. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-44 

The questions of having plan updates based on lessons learned were addressed in the written 

plans, but many of these plans had not been updated in the recent past. Methodologies for 

incorporating changes to plans based on lessons learned were not observed. 

Lessons Learned from Recent Evacuations 

Training: Training of key personnel in emergency management agencies is well accepted as an 

integral part of ensuring readiness for catastrophic incidents. However, the skills and capabilities 

of personnel assigned to “surge teams” that deploy to assist with on-site support must also be 

maintained and updated through training and exercises. The after-action report for the ESF-1 

program for the 2005 hurricane season found the volunteers from throughout the agency to be 

important resources to help meet the demands of a catastrophic incident, but that some needed 

more training in the established ESF-1 and NRP processes. 

An integrated training program is needed, in part because of the steep learning curve for complex 

operations that cross jurisdictional boundaries and involve a regional response that is facilitated 

by Federal assistance. Additionally, the learning curve required for understanding Federal 

programs and assistance can be steep, and this knowledge needs to be sustained and maintained. 

Incorporating Lessons Learned: After-action reports from agencies involved in mass 

evacuations, including Federal agencies such as the National Hurricane Center, provide a 

valuable source of information to improve mass evacuation processes. The DOD’s U.S. 

Northern Command and its components have participated in a number of full-scale exercises 

where the exercise scenarios were designed to overwhelm local and State assets to evoke a 

response under the NRP, including the employment of DOD assets. In addition, DOD is 

preparing a review of its military assistance to civil authorities in response to Hurricane Katrina, 

which will be another important source of information. The lessons learned from the responses 

to recent hurricanes (e.g., Katrina, Rita, Charley, Ivan, and Opal) as well as earlier hurricanes 

(e.g., Camille, Hugo, and Andrew) continue to be valuable. Lessons learned from major 

exercises such as Hurricane Pam in New Orleans identified evacuation issues for the city. 

Federal, State, and local agencies should establish processes to ensure findings and lessons 

learned from after-action reports are addressed and incorporated into procedures and training. 

 

Senior-Level Participation in Training and Exercises: Government training exercises should 

be sufficiently challenging. In some cases after Hurricane Katrina, it was felt that top officials 

(from Cabinet-level secretaries and generals to governors and mayors), did not participate in 

exercises and that these training events did not last long enough.51 The GAO, in a February 1, 

2006 statement, also noted key players are not always involved in drills, the lessons from 

previous training and exercises are not retained, and the training and exercises are more targeted 

at terrorist events than natural disasters.52 Based on exercises and drills, it is possible to learn and 

exercise a unified command through the ICS. This would allow exercise of these systems, which 

can greatly assist with major command and control issues, as were seen during Hurricane 

Katrina. This would allow for more effective and immediate direct support for incident 

response. The use of simulations or computer-assisted exercises allows for a more robust 

exercise to assess processes, procedures, and plan implementation and allow key leaders the 

opportunity to examine issues in a simulated environment. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 4-45 

Logistics Training and Exercises: Logistics will be critical to the success of sheltering for 

mass evacuations. In Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, private companies such as Wal-Mart and 

Home Depot were able to deliver large amounts of disaster relief supplies before the Federal 

government. There is a need to examine the provision of common supplies and services such as 

fuel, water, food, and transportation and learn from private sector companies that are experts in 

logistics. This includes the movement of material into and out of the evacuated area and into 

specific processes that would manage the supply or service cycle. Even in full-scale exercises, 

logistics is rarely fully addressed. Exercises are an important tool to test current logistics 

processes and expose potential weaknesses of logistics plans to support mass evacuations. 

Best Practices 

Training and Exercises: Orange County, Florida, has established an annual exercise program to 

determine the ability of local governments to respond to emergencies.53 This training and 

exercise program, coordinated by the Orange County Office of Emergency Management, is the 

overall coordinator within Orange County for emergency management training and exercises. 

County departments and authorities, municipalities, and all other public and private emergency 

response agencies also bear the responsibility of ensuring that personnel with emergency 

responsibilities are sufficiently trained. The Orange County CEMP also requires that all agencies 

take necessary steps to ensure appropriate records are kept reflecting emergency training 

received by their personnel. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 5-1 

Chapter 5: Findings and Recommendations 

In response to the Congressional request for a study of evacuation plans for the Gulf Coast 

region, the U.S. DOT conducted an assessment of 63 State, county, and parish evacuation plans 

and met with officials from each of the Gulf Coast States to discuss evacuation planning issues. 

The study was done in coordination with a broader nationwide study underway by DHS to 

review the emergency management plans for the States and the 75 major urban areas. Because 

of their vulnerabilities to hurricanes, jurisdictions in the Gulf Coast region have more experience 

with evacuations than other areas of the country, and in many respects their plans provide a 

benchmark for other States. However, there are areas in which the effectiveness of State and 

local plans in the Gulf Coast region could be improved to better address the requirements for 

mass evacuations. The U.S. DOT will use the information from this study as it moves forward in 

partnership with DHS and other Federal agencies and with State and local agencies to meet the 

challenges of evacuations from catastrophic incidents. 

The intent of the study was not to rate individual plans or to recommend changes in individual 

plans. Rather, the objective was to assess the general strengths and weaknesses of plans across 

the region to serve as a basis for identifying the most significant needs for assistance in 

evacuation planning and how that assistance can most effectively be provided. Chapter IV 

details findings of the plan evaluations. This chapter summarizes those findings, discusses 

initiatives underway to address some of the weaknesses uncovered in the assessment, and 

recommends further actions to improve overall mass evacuation plans and capabilities. 

Overall, there are three crosscutting issues and study findings that emerged from the study: 

• Current evacuation guidance, plans and exercises do not adequately reflect requirements for 

Federal, State, and local coordination to effectively execute a mass evacuation from a 

catastrophic incident. 

• Evacuation plans and operations focus primarily on evacuations by private vehicles and do 

not adequately address the use of other safe and practical modes that could be used to 

evacuate persons, especially those with special needs. 

• Plans generally include provisions for communicating information on evacuation routes, 

what evacuees using personal vehicles should take with them, and where shelters are located; 

however, plans for communicating essential information to those who do not have access to 

an automobile and to those with other special needs generally are not as well developed. 

Specific Findings and Recommendations for Key Elements of 

Evacuation Planning and Operations 

This section summarizes major findings from the study for each of the key elements in 

evacuation planning and operations. Recommendations and current actions related to these 

findings are also discussed. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 5-2 

Decision Making and Management 

Findings 

Federal, State, and local emergency plans and operations for evacuations are not well integrated. 

• Coordination: Decision making and coordination processes, including real-time operational 

command and control, are in place but are not sufficient to meet the demands of a mass 

evacuation from a catastrophic incident. The NRP and SLG 101 establish a framework for 

Federal, State, and local jurisdictions to work together to execute most evacuations, but 

neither contains adequate guidance for a catastrophe the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina. 

The processes for joining resources and linking decision making are not developed well 

enough. The lack of regional exercises to test decision making and management processes 

for a wide-scale mass evacuation also contribute to weaknesses in management. 

• Mutual Aid: All of the Gulf Coast States have mutual-aid agreements with neighboring 

States and are members of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). All 

of the local jurisdictions also have mutual-aid agreements. Local agreements were not 

efficient for a hurricane the size of Katrina because the neighboring jurisdictions were also 

inundated and unable to provide timely assistance. State officials believe the EMAC process 

and agreements need to be updated to address problems associated with mass evacuations. 

Strengthening mutual-aid among jurisdictions is a critical step to improve mass evacuations. 

• ESF-1 Roles: Evacuation roles and responsibilities under the ESF-1 program are not well 

understood by all State and local jurisdictions. Many agencies are unaware of the resources 

and capabilities the U.S. DOT has available to help in an evacuation. There also is a gap 

between ESF-1 functions provided in accordance with the NRP and the evacuation 

capabilities of some State and local agencies, especially in the area of operational command 

and control. 

Recommendations and Current Actions 

• DOT is working to clarify the Federal, State, local, and tribal government, non-governmental 

organization, and private sector roles, responsibilities, and expectations for evacuation 

activities under ESF-1. 

• The NRP, SLG 101, and other evacuation-related guidance should be updated to reflect 

lessons learned in implementing evacuation plans during recent mass evacuations. 

• Federal agencies should work with the National Emergency Management Association 

(NEMA), States, and local jurisdictions to improve EMAC to develop more effective and 

better coordinated mutual-aid agreements among State and local jurisdictions. 

• Regional exercises such as those that DHS is conducting in preparation for the 2006 

hurricane season should be held on a regular basis to provide a mechanism for officials from 

different agencies and different levels of government to jointly review management 

requirements and resources available for mass evacuations. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 5-3 

"The United States was, and is, ill-prepared 

to respond to a catastrophic event of the 

magnitude of Hurricane Katrina. Catastrophic 

events are, by their nature, difficult to 

imagine and to adequately plan for, and the 

existing plans and training proved 

inadequate in Katrina." 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, April 

2006. 

Planning 

Findings 

• Insufficient Guidelines: The States and local 

jurisdictions generally meet the guidelines for 

evacuations outlined in SLG 101 and have 

demonstrated their ability to plan and execute 

many evacuations from hurricanes. However, 

those guidelines did not lead to evacuation plans, 

organizational and management processes, or 

coordination with other levels of government that 

are necessary for a mass evacuation from a 

catastrophic incident. Further, SLG 101 has not 

been updated to correspond with the NRP.

• Lack of Detail in Plans: While some jurisdictions have well coordinated and tested plans, 

some have plans that do not include sufficient detail to ensure their effective execution. 

These jurisdictions may be the “weak link in the chain” when jurisdictions across a region 

must mobilize in a coordinated manner to respond to a catastrophic incident. Some locations 

such as coastal Texas and southeast Florida have developed regional evacuation and traffic 

management plans encompassing many jurisdictions for a large-scale evacuation.

• Complex Evacuation Plans: Evacuation plans for a region are spread among a “family of 

plans.” These include plans, supplements, and annexes from various agencies and 

jurisdictions. They are organized differently and have varied levels of specificity. It is 

difficult for planners to assemble all of the important evacuation elements from the various 

agencies. In addition, it is difficult for planners and operational staff to assess whether all of 

the pieces work together and in coordination with the plans of other jurisdictions. These 

problems are compounded when a disaster includes multiple States and the Federal 

government. 

• Transportation Expertise: Transportation agencies and providers have a unique 

understanding of evacuation, but emergency management and/or public safety agencies may 

do the planning and lead the decision making without sufficient input from transportation 

planners and operators including the various modes to be involved. 

• En Route Services: Plans do not usually address the need for services en route for evacuees 

including fuel, water, food, restrooms, shelter, and medical needs. 

• Operational Plans Integration: Evacuation plans at all levels of government inadequately 

support effective real-time command and control of mass evacuations, especially evacuations 

involving multiple States and the use of transportation modes other than personal vehicles. 

Plans need to better complement each other and provide for a smooth integration of Federal 

resources, capabilities, and operational structures. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 5-4 

Recommendations and Current Actions 

• The U.S. DOT will continue to participate in the DHS processes to review and improve the 

NRP and SLG 101 guidance and incorporate the lessons learned from the 2005 hurricane 

season. 

• Regional plans for mass evacuations in connection with one or more catastrophic incidents 

on the scale of Hurricane Katrina should be developed. The plans should be developed 

jointly by State and local officials within the region in cooperation with officials from 

appropriate Federal agencies; providers of all safe and practical modes of transportation; 

providers of shelters, food, fuel, and other necessities; managers of hospitals, nursing homes, 

jails, and other institutions with their own evacuation plans; and representatives of various 

special needs populations.

• Hurricane Evacuation Studies should be frequently updated. Procedures should be developed 

to allow critical information in these studies to be updated regularly without the need for a 

major study effort. 

• Evacuation modeling tools should be developed that can predict evacuation times, manage 

evacuations in real time, and also be used by large and small jurisdictions to better support 

evacuation decision making, planning, and operations. 

• Transportation agencies and operators should be more directly involved in key aspects of 

evacuation planning and implementation. 

Public Communication and Preparedness 

Findings 

• Public Education and Responsibility: Many State and local plans do not contain adequate 

provisions for informing residents and visitors about who has to evacuate, when, and why. 

Insufficient information is often given for people to understand the differences between 

hurricane watches and warnings, voluntary and mandatory evacuations, and other facts that 

people need to make better decisions on whether and when to evacuate. 

• Tailored Communications: Some State and local plans provide for communicating basic 

evacuation-related information to residents in Spanish or other foreign languages, but most 

plans do not. Plans need to be improved for communicating evacuation-related information 

to people with limited English proficiency, people who are difficult to reach such as migrant 

workers and the homeless, and people with visual or hearing impairments. 

• Communicating with Evacuees During an Evacuation: Plans for communicating 

information during an evacuation are not as well developed as plans for communicating prior 

to an evacuation. During an evacuation, evacuees typically will not have access to the 

Internet or to television—two of the primary means of providing pre-evacuation information. 

Many States position dynamic message signs along evacuation routes and staff at rest areas, 

truck weigh stations, welcome centers, and service plazas to provide information to evacuees 

en route. Motorist information services such as the 511 telephone system Florida has 

deployed or highway advisory radio can provide route-specific information. To get real-time 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 5-5 

traffic information on evacuation routes, traffic monitoring equipment is required. That 

equipment is not widely deployed in most rural areas, but Florida has an extensive traffic 

monitoring system. Portable ITS components and systems can allow States to dramatically 

increase these capabilities in rural areas 

Recommendations and Current Actions 

• Systems to provide information to evacuees and emergency managers during the course of 

evacuations on the status of traffic, shelters, fuel, and other services along evacuation routes 

should be improved and deployed. Systems should be based on existing ITS architecture 

and, to the maximum extent possible, should be incorporated into general purpose motorist 

information and traffic monitoring services used during normal traffic operations. 

Evacuation of People with Special Needs 

Findings 

More planning must be conducted to accommodate special needs populations in an evacuation. 

• Defining Special Needs: Current evacuation plans often define “special needs” populations 

too narrowly to address all those who need transportation during an evacuation. 

Considerations for people with special needs are included in plans when the groups are 

identified; however, many plans do not include certain special needs populations. For 

example, some plans include only people in institutions as having special needs, and do not 

include people with special needs who live independently, even though they still need 

assistance to evacuate. 

• Residential Institutions: Major institutions, such as prisons and hospitals, are responsible 

for evacuating their facilities, but the evacuation plans are often not coordinated with the 

emergency management agency, and they do not know whether the plans function together 

(e.g., How much notice does the institution need? Are they relying on other State or local 

resources such as State Police or vehicles who might be assigned elsewhere in a 

catastrophe?). 

Recommendations and Current Actions 

• The U.S. DOT is preparing a primer on evacuating various special needs populations. This 

primer will include essential information and technical assistance for State and local agencies 

and others responsible for evacuating and sheltering persons with various special needs. 

• State and local agencies should work with the special needs communities to develop systems 

whereby those requiring specialized transportation or sheltering services during evacuations 

can make those needs known to emergency managers and operators of transportation and 

sheltering services before evacuations 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 5-6 

Evacuation Operations for All Modes of Transportation 

Findings 

ITS proved very useful in an evacuation. 

• Advanced technologies: Over the last 10 years, many State and local agencies have 

installed ITS systems in their urban and high-traffic areas to better manage traffic flow and 

assist with incident management on a daily basis. These systems proved very useful in an 

evacuation, but are generally not available in rural and less populated areas. However, 

mobile or portable transportation management components will increase an Agency’s 

capabilities to monitor and respond to conditions along various evacuation routes. 

Catastrophic evacuations can quickly overwhelm State and local transportation resources. 

• Contraflow Operations: States in the Gulf Coast region all have contraflow plans, and 

those plans have been used in recent evacuations. Contraflow operations can be very 

effective, but substantial planning is required to assess details of how, where, and under what 

conditions it will be implemented. Few of the plans included detailed plans to use alternative 

modes of transportation for evacuating people without access to private vehicles. 

• All Safe and Practical Modes of Transportation: Most State and local evacuation plans 

focus primarily on highway evacuations by personal vehicles, which is by far the 

predominant mode. Plans, in general, do not give adequate attention to evacuation by other 

modes including buses, trains, ships, and planes. Several States recently have entered into 

agreements with motor coach operators to secure services of additional motor coaches, 

should they be needed. Buses, trains, ships, and airplanes are relied upon by those with 

special needs and those without access to an automobile. 

Recommendations and Current Actions 

• The U.S. DOT is working to establish procedures for advance notice from State and local 

agencies that evacuation assistance may be needed in the future. These coordination 

processes will identify the type and number of resources the U.S. DOT can supply and the 

time needed for deployment. The U.S. DOT will continue to work with the State and local 

agencies to better understand each other’s capabilities and to ensure there is an adequate 

understanding of the process to request such resources. 

• ITS systems should be deployed more widely on evacuation routes to monitor traffic 

conditions and to provide information to evacuees on alternative routes. This is an efficient 

means of communicating with evacuees not only during an evacuation but also during the reentry after the storm. 

• The U.S. DOT and several States have begun to reach out to various segments of the 

transportation industry to better understand their requirements to effectively participate in a 

mass evacuation associated with a catastrophic incident. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 5-7 

Evacuation-Related Sheltering Considerations 

Findings 

• Evacuation route services: Few plans addressed services along the evacuation route such as 

fuel, food, restrooms, and water, or access to emergency medical services. Few plans 

provided for these services or addressed how to communicate the information to evacuees. 

Such an effort will have to involve the private sector such as gasoline suppliers and retailers, 

hotels, and restaurants and other food service providers. These groups are not often included 

in emergency planning activities. 

• Shelter destinations: Current plans do not adequately address the number of shelters that 

might be needed for a mass evacuation comparable in scope to Hurricane Katrina. Because of 

the large number of evacuees, there were not enough shelters to accommodate the number of 

people seeking them. The U.S. DOT arranged for motor coaches to transport evacuees, but 

had difficulty finding shelter destinations for those evacuees. Some pre-existing agreements 

on who could use the shelters were not honored due to the massive number of people who 

evacuated in Texas during Hurricane Rita and evacuees still in Texas shelters after Hurricane 

Katrina. MARAD ships proved their value in providing shelter (and command and control 

capabilities) for emergency response workers, displaced critical workers and emergency 

response equipment. 

• Pets: Current plans do not adequately consider accommodation of pets. The lack of shelter 

and accommodation of pets on various modes of public transportation was a significant issue 

during the recent evacuations. Thousands of pets needed care and shelter, and many people 

refused to evacuate without their pets. 

• Transporting Rescued Persons: Hurricane Katrina illustrated failure to integrate search 

and rescue missions and the subsequent need to transport those rescued persons to shelters or 

assembly areas for evacuation. 

Recommendations and Current Actions 

• The U.S. DOT has established liaisons with the American Red Cross and the Humane 

Society of the United States to work on major evacuation issues. The U.S. DOT will 

continue to work with the American Red Cross and other organizations involved in sheltering 

to more effectively meet needs associated with mass evacuations. 

• State and local regulations with respect to accommodating pets on public transportation and 

at public shelters should be reviewed and modified as appropriate to provide greater 

accommodation of pets during evacuations. These changes should be communicated with 

the public and shelter operators. 

• Steps should be taken to ensure that all forms of temporary housing meet Americans with 

Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. Steps should be taken to consider the needs of 

those with disabilities who may need special accommodations. 

• DOT should assist DHS develop a comprehensive search and rescue plan that integrates 

rescue missions with transportation and evacuation. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 5-8 

Training and Exercises 

Findings 

Training and exercises are critical to practice established procedures, processes, and agency 

relationships. 

• Regional and Interagency Training: All of the States examined for this report indicate a 

commitment to an exercise, drill, and training program. Several of the States regularly 

include table-top exercises to test their procedures and processes, include representatives 

from transportation agencies, and have a system for incorporating lessons learned as needed. 

Agencies reported that the relationships and experience built through training and exercises 

assists with successful evacuations. However, the States generally train and exercise with 

jurisdictions in their State and do not participate in multi-State exercises and training. Some 

plans do not include training and exercises for volunteer organizations that are a major 

resource in emergency response. Some States reported that they were not constrained by 

funding, but rather by the time available to plan and participate in training and exercises. 

Recommendations and Current Actions 

• Regional exercises to test plans and decision making structures for different mass evacuation 

scenarios should be conducted on a regular basis to ensure that Federal, State, and local 

agencies are prepared to respond to different types of catastrophic incidents. 

Summary Comments 

The Homeland Security Council, the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the 

GAO have all issued reports looking at various aspects of the Federal response to the 

catastrophic hurricanes that struck in 2005. These reports contain numerous recommendations 

on actions that could allow the Federal Government to work more effectively with State and 

local government in responding to future catastrophic incidents. Many of these 

recommendations touch on aspects of mass evacuations. The U.S. DOT, DHS, and other Federal 

agencies are reviewing these recommendations along with other internal and external 

assessments of responses to recent catastrophic incidents. As noted above, many short-term 

actions have already been taken, but others could require legislative changes. Potential longerterm changes are being carefully considered before any legislative proposals are sent forward. 

The U.S. DOT is examining a number of specific options that will enhance its ability to respond 

to evacuation needs associated with catastrophic incidents. In addition to activities noted above 

that have already been done to prepare for the 2006 hurricane season, the U.S. DOT is examining 

a range of potential longer-term options including ways to organize itself better to respond to 

catastrophic incidents and ways to enhance the contribution of various U.S. DOT programs to 

improve State and local evacuation capabilities. Once decisions have been made on how best to 

accomplish any needed U.S. DOT organizational and programmatic changes and those changes 

have been assessed in terms of their contribution to overall Federal response capabilities, 

required legislative proposals will be made. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 A-1

Appendix A: Secretary of Transportation’s Letter to the 

Governors Requesting Copies of State and Local Evacuation 

Planning Documents 

This appendix provides a copy of the letter Secretary Norman Y. Mineta sent to the governors of 

the following States requesting their assistance with this study: 

• State of Alabama 

• State of Arkansas 

• State of Florida 

• State of Georgia 

• State of Louisiana 

• State of Mississippi 

• State of Oklahoma 

• State of Tennessee 

• State of Texas 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 A-2
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 A-3
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 B-1

Appendix B: State, Parish, and County Agency Plans 

Included in the Assessments 

The U.S. DOT acquired copies of the evacuation plans through three means: (1) the DHS 

National Planning Review, (2) the Secretary of Transportation's letter to the Governors, and (3) 

direct contact with State and local emergency managers or transportation officials. The U.S. 

DOT also consulted with the State emergency management agencies to validate that the plans 

provided for review included all relevant plans available in each State. While evacuation plans 

were not available from every jurisdiction, the U.S. DOT collected evacuation planning 

documents from each of the Gulf Coast States and from more than 54 percent of the State, 

county, and parish plans identified for the study. The set of collected plans provided a sufficient 

base from which to assess the overall adequacy of evacuation planning for those areas in the Gulf 

Coast region with the greatest threat of catastrophic hurricanes. 

The team received 82 plans, 63 of which have been assessed and ranked, as presented in Table 

B-1. The remaining 19 plans were deemed incomplete as essential information pertaining to 

evacuation-related processes and planning was missing. Consequently, these documents have 

not been reviewed and are listed in Table B-2. In addition, four host states (i.e., Arkansas, 

Georgia, Oklahoma, and Tennessee) were evaluated against criteria that focused on the 

sheltering of evacuees. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 B-2

Table B-1 - State, Parish, and County Plans Included in the Assessment 

No. State State, Parish, and County Plans 

1 State 

2 Alabama Mobile 

3 Alachua County 

4 Bay County 

5 Bradford County 

6 Broward 

7 Calhoun 

8 Charlotte 

9 Clay 

10 Collier 

11 Duval 

12 Flagler 

13 Franklin 

14 Glades 

15 Hillsborough 

16 Indian 

17 Leon 

18 Liberty 

19 Madison County 

20 Martin 

21 Miami-Dade 

22 Monroe 

23 Okaloosa County 

24 Orlando 

25 Orange 

26 Pasco 

27 Pinellas 

28 Santa Rosa 

29 St. Johns 

30 Suwannee 

31 Volusia 

32 Walton County 

33 

Florida 

State 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 B-3

No State State, Parish and County Plans 

34 Acadia Parish 

35 Ascension Parish 

36 Concordia Parish 

37 Iberia Parish 

38 Jefferson Davis 

39 Jefferson Parish 

40 Lafayette Parish 

41 Lafourche Parish 

42 Livingston Parish 

43 New Orleans 

44 Plaquemines 

45 St. Charles 

46 St. Bernard 

47 St. Helena 

48 St John the Baptist Parish 

49 St. James Parish 

50 St. Martin Parish 

51 St. Mary Parish

52 

Louisiana 

State 

53 Harrison 

54 Jackson 

55 Pearl River 

56 Pike 

57 Stone 

58 

Mississippi 

State 

59 Fort Bend 

60 Harris 

61 Montgomery 

62 Nueces County (Corpus Christi) 

63 

Texas 

State 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 B-4

Table B-2 - State, Parish and County Plans Not Included in the Assessment 

No State County/Parish 

1 Baldwin 

2 Baker 

3 Brevard 

4 Escambia 

5 Hardee 

6 Lake 

7 Lee 

8 Manatee 

9 Nassau 

10 Palm Beach 

11 Polk 

12 Seminole 

13 

Florida 

Washington 

14 St. Tamany 

15 Tangipahoa 

16 

Louisiana 

Washington 

17 Live Oak 

18 Tarrant 

19 

Texas 

Travis 

Sheltering States Assessments 

Four host states were evaluated against criterion that focused on the sheltering of evacuees. 

Oklahoma, Georgia, and Tennessee provided complete plans, and Arkansas provided its National 

Plan Review response. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 C-1

Appendix C: Evaluation Methodology and Evaluation Criteria 

 

Congress requested the U.S. DOT, in cooperation with the DHS, to “review and assess Federal 

and State evacuation plans (including the costs of the plans) for catastrophic hurricanes and other 

catastrophic events impacting the Gulf Coast Region and report its findings and 

recommendations to Congress.” To meet the Congressional requirements for this study, the U.S. 

DOT developed a systematic, analytical process to evaluate the readiness and adequacy of State 

and local jurisdictions to move people in the Gulf Coast region away from catastrophic events 

and to safe shelter. The U.S. DOT’s methodology included several major steps to collect 

information, evaluate and validate the criteria and results, and develop findings and 

recommendations to improve catastrophic evacuation planning in the Gulf Coast region and 

nationwide. These steps are described in more detail later in this chapter. 

Hurricane evacuation plans are prepared at various levels of government including State, county, 

and municipal, and may be prepared by a variety of agencies ranging from a State DOT, to a 

State emergency management agency, to a municipal public works agency, or even to a State 

highway patrol agency. For the evaluation of the adequacy of State and local evacuation plans, 

the U.S. DOT collected and assessed the plans from various agencies within a State as well as 

neighboring jurisdictions that were involved, and also assessed how they coordinated their plans 

across geographic and political boundaries. 

Overall Methodology 

The assessment process was built on the following steps: 

• Assessing against criteria. The team evaluated the State and local evacuation plans against 

common criteria, not against each other. The team’s analysts began by carefully identifying 

the seven key areas that are most important in achieving evacuation planning goals —

decision making and management, evacuation planning, public communications and 

preparedness, operations, sheltering considerations, and training and exercise. In each area, 

the team then identified the characteristics of effectively managed evacuation processes and 

framed these as questions that became the rating factors. 

• Refining the factors. The team then identified subfactors, again framed as questions, that 

further refined each of the general evaluation questions. For example, a state that manages 

decision making well would have established processes for large-scale evacuations. A state 

with strong training and exercise programs would have plans with provisions for training a 

volunteer cadre. 

• Collecting the most important information on the questions. The team then assembled 

information related to each of the questions including current Federal guidelines and 

examples of good practice from various sources. 

• Analyzing the information through a collaborative process. The team of analysts and subject 

matter experts jointly analyzed and discussed the data and its implications. They combined 

their information and jointly assigned ratings for each of the plans. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 C-2

• Conducting the process in transparent fashion. From the very beginning, the evaluation 

team committed to a process of transparency. The project’s researchers and analysts 

consulted extensively with all involved officials before defining the criteria. Along the way, 

the team provided regular status updates on its progress. 

 

Criteria Development 

Developing the evaluation questions against which to assess the Gulf Coast region’s evacuation 

plans requires (among other things) an understanding of the transportation requirements needed 

to support evacuations, the characteristics of the underlying incident, and the transportation 

resources available to respond to the incident. A decision to evacuate residents, visitors, and 

businesses due to an approaching hurricane is not a decision for transportation agencies. 

Emergency management and senior elected officials make that decision. However, transportation 

personnel are a key resource for planning and operating a safe and successful evacuation. 

The U.S. DOT developed evaluation questions that focus on State and local actions necessary to 

plan for and implement a mass evacuation. These actions include written policy directives; 

coordination of planning processes; and provisions made to communicate information to 

evacuees before, during, and after evacuation. The developed questions were used for the 

detailed review of individual written evacuation planning documents from the jurisdictions in the 

Gulf Coast region. The criteria were also reviewed and validated during the discussions with the 

State and local officials during the site visits. 

Questions based on current Federal guidance were drawn from multiple sources including FEMA 

SLG 101: Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning, HSPD-5: Management of 

Domestic Incidents, NIMS, and NRP, Volunteer and Donations Management Support Annex. 

Additional questions were developed based on factors cited in SAFETEA-LU; the FY 2006 DOT 

Appropriations Act; findings from recent government reports including the Task Force Report to 

the Texas Governor and the White House, House of Representatives, Senate, and GAO reports 

on the Hurricane Katrina response. Section 10204 of SAFETEA-LU and the FY 2006 DOT 

Appropriations Act included specific factors that were a part of this evaluation, such as the 

potential modes of transportation in evacuations, coordination with neighboring jurisdictions, 

and communications before and during evacuations. Additional transportation factors developed 

by the U.S. DOT ensure full consideration of transportation agency roles in mass evacuations. 

The eight factors identified in the legislation that were reflected in the evaluation questions are as 

follows: 

1. All safe and practical modes of transportation available for evacuations; 

2. The extent to which evacuation plans are coordinated with neighboring States and adjoining 

jurisdictions’ 

3. Methods of communicating evacuation plans and preparing citizens in advance of 

evacuations; 

4. Methods of coordinating communication with evacuees during plan execution; 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 C-3

5. The availability of food, water, restrooms, fueling stations, and shelter opportunities along 

the evacuation routes; 

6. The time required to evacuate under the plan; 

7. The physical and mental strains associated with the evacuation; and 

8. The cost of the plan. 

Table C-1 shows how Congressional study criteria apply to seven key elements. 

Table C-1. Legislative Factors and Evaluation Questions Related to Seven Key Elements of 

Evacuations 

Factors from Section 10204 SAFETEA-LU and FY 

2006 DOT Appropriations Act Evaluation Questions 

Key Element: Mass Evacuation Decision Making and Management 

• All safe and practical modes of transportation 

available for evacuations. 

• The time required to evacuate under the plan. 

• The cost of the plan. 

• The extent to which evacuation plans are 

coordinated with neighboring States and 

adjoining jurisdictions. 

• Does the plan describe direction and control 

with respect to mass evacuation? 

• Does the plan describe the provisions needed 

to execute a large-scale evacuation? 

Key Element: Evacuation Planning

• The extent to which evacuation plans are 

coordinated with neighboring States and 

adjoining jurisdictions. 

• The cost of the plan. 

• The time required to evacuate under the plan. 

• Does the plan address evacuation planning 

considerations (e.g., decision making, 

communications, available transportation 

modes, special needs, and sheltering) with 

regard to catastrophic hurricanes and other 

catastrophic events? 

• Does the plan require organizations to prepare 

standard operating procedures that contain the 

detailed instructions that responsible individuals 

need to follow to accomplish assigned tasks? 

• Does the plan include provisions for returning 

evacuees to their homes? 

Key Element: Public Communications and Preparedness for Mass Evacuations

• Methods of communicating evacuation plans and 

preparing citizens in advance of evacuations. 

• Methods of coordinating communications with 

evacuees during plan evacuation. 

• The physical and mental strains associated with 

evacuations. 

• Does the plan describe the provisions and 

methods for alerting citizens that evacuation 

may be necessary? 

• Does the plan identify what will be done to keep 

evacuees informed during evacuation to reduce 

their level of mental and physical stress? 

• Does the plan describe the means the 

government will use to keep evacuees and the 

public informed on the specific actions they 

should take after the evacuation has started? 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 C-4

Factors from Section 10204 SAFETEA-LU and FY 

2006 DOT Appropriations Act Evaluation Questions 

Key Element: Evacuation of People with Special Needs in a Catastrophic Event

• All safe and practical modes of transportation 

available for evacuations. 

• Methods of communicating evacuation plans and 

preparing citizens in advance of evacuations. 

• The time required to evacuate under the plan. 

• The physical and mental strains associated with 

evacuations.

• Methods of coordinating communications with 

evacuees during plan evacuation. 

• The availability of food, water, restrooms, fueling 

stations, and shelter opportunities along the 

evacuation routes. 

• Does the plan describe provisions for 

evacuating special needs residential 

populations (e.g., people with physical, mental, 

cognitive, and developmental disabilities) 

including those in assisted living facilities and 

hospitals, and those living independently? 

• Does the plan describe provisions for 

evacuating other special needs populations? 

Key Element: Mass Evacuation Operations 

• All safe and practical modes of transportation 

available for evacuations. 

• The time required to evacuate under the plan. 

• Methods of coordinating communications with 

evacuees during plan evacuation. 

• The availability of food, water, restrooms, fueling 

stations, and shelter opportunities along the 

evacuation routes. 

• The physical and mental strains associated with 

evacuations. 

• Does the plan describe the safe and practical 

transportation modes that will be used to move 

evacuees that cannot transport themselves 

(other than special needs populations)? 

• Does the plan include provisions to ensure the 

availability of public and commercial transport 

modes and necessary transport operators? 

• Does the plan identify evacuation routes? 

• Does the plan address the use of contraflow 

measures? 

Key Element: Mass Evacuation Sheltering Considerations 

• The availability of food, water, restrooms, fueling 

stations, and shelter opportunities along the 

evacuation routes. 

• The extent to which the evacuation plans are 

coordinated with the point receiving the 

evacuated personnel. 

• The physical and mental strains associated with 

evacuations. 

• Methods of coordinating communications with 

evacuees during plan evacuation. 

• Does the plan require the establishment of 

mutual-aid agreements with other jurisdictions 

to formalize access to and use of shelters? 

• Does the plan include provisions for informing 

shelter operators and evacuees about the 

locations of public shelters outside of the 

evacuation area and their status (e.g., full, 

accepting evacuees, accepting evacuees with 

pets, special needs shelters, etc.)? 

• Does the plan address strategies and 

responsibilities for shelter operations? 

• Does the plan include provisions for the care 

and protection of animals? 

Key Element: Mass Evacuation Training and Exercises 

• All safe and practical modes of transportation 

available for evacuations. 

• The extent to which evacuation plans are 

coordinated with neighboring States and 

adjoining jurisdictions. 

• The time required to evacuate under the plan. 

• Does the plan include provisions for training a 

volunteer cadre to support shelter management 

operations, transport of evacuees, and first-aid 

stations along the evacuation routes, etc.? 

• Does the plan require periodic reviews and 

updates of the plan, exercises, and after-action 

reports as part of the planning process? 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 C-5

Table C-2 lists the 20 criteria developed by the U.S. DOT for this study. For each of the criteria, 

a list of attributes (stated as questions) was developed to define and support the parameters of 

each criterion. The criteria were grouped according to the seven key elements of catastrophic 

evacuation planning and operations. These elements are major categories of activities or 

functions that local, State, and Federal emergency management agencies would conduct to plan 

and execute a catastrophic evacuation. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 

Table C-2. Catastrophic Evacuation Plan Evaluation Questions 

Decision Making and Management Criteria Question 

a. Does the plan identify organizations and individuals (by position) r

providing data to support the evacuation decision? 

b. Does the plan identify organizations and individuals (by position) r

reviewing these data, including the condition of the transportation making evacuation recommendations to decision maker(s)? 

c. Does the plan identify organizations and individuals (by position) r

and amending evacuation orders? 

d. Does the plan identify organizations and individuals (by position) r

executing and coordinating overall evacuation operations? 

e. Does the plan identify organizations and individuals (by position) r

directing resources to execute evacuation orders? 

f. Does the plan identify organizations and individuals (by position) r

authorizing/releasing information to media and the public? 

g. Does the plan identify roles and responsibilities of different levels o

how these government agencies coordinate their efforts with each 

h. Does the plan identify specific roles of the State and local transpor

enforcement agencies in evacuation operations? 

D1 

Does the plan describe direction and control with respect to catastrophic evacuation? 

i. Does the plan identify variation(s) in direction and control for differ

catastrophic events that require evacuation? 

a. Does the plan define specific criteria for issuing either voluntary or 

evacuation orders? 

b. Does the plan contain pre-approved drafts of executive orders for c. Does the plan address amending or revising the evacuation ordersd. Does the plan describe time-phasing of evacuation execution (i.e., 

concurrent activities) for different levels of evacuation response? 

e. Does the plan identify specific contingency plans that can be used 

during the course of an evacuation? 

D2 Does the plan describe the provisions needed to execute a large-scale 

evacuation? 

f. Does the plan contain provisions to announce closings of schools 

risk area? 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 

g. Does the plan contain provisions to identify the number of evacuee

transportation assistance? 

h. Does the plan contain a strategy for special needs populations? i. Does the plan contain a strategy for securing and restricting acces

Planning Criteria Question 

a. Does the plan address the catastrophic hazards that would cause 

evacuation? 

b. Based on the catastrophic hazards, does the plan identify and prio

that should be evacuated? 

c. Based on the catastrophic hazards, does the plan identify the num

vehicles to be evacuated? 

d. Based on the catastrophic hazards, does the plan identify decision 

implementation of evacuation? 

e. Based on the catastrophic hazards, does the plan identify the estim

complete the evacuation, and is this coordinated with highway, law transit agencies? 

f. Based on the catastrophic hazards, does the plan identify the dista

travel to ensure their safety? 

g. Based on the catastrophic hazards, does the plan identify the estim

sheltered evacuees will need support? 

h. Does the plan require tasked organizations to identify, obtain, and 

and equipment required to support all aspects of the evacuation (ethat do not have their own means of transport, evacuating special communicating information to the public, managing traffic flow, etc

i. Does the plan include host communities in disaster declarations? 

P1 

Does the plan address evacuation planning considerations (i.e., decisionmaking, communications, available transportation modes, special needs, and sheltering) with regard to catastrophic events? 

j. Does the plan require periodic reviews and updates of the plan, ex

and after-action reports as part of the planning process? 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 

P2 

a. Does the plan require organizations to prepare standard operating 

contain the detailed instructions that responsible individuals need 

assigned tasks? 

b. Does the plan address procedures in place for handling re-entry, a

these to the public? 

c. Does the plan include provisions for transporting evacuees back to 

residence? 

d. Does the plan identify personnel resources and equipment require

P3 

Does the plan require organizations to prepare standard operating procedures that contain the detailed instructions that responsible individuals need to follow to accomplish assigned tasks? 

e. Does the plan include provisions for assisting evacuees in reunitin

members? 

Public Communications and Preparedness Criteria Question 

a. Does the plan contain provisions to manage timely communication 

instructions to prepare citizens in advance of the order to evacuate

b. Does the plan identify contingency plans for use if normal means o

communications are unavailable? 

c. Does the plan provide for communicating with people that have lim

proficiency? 

d. Does the plan include provisions for communicating with special n

people with hearing, vision, and physical impairments) and the me

e. Does the plan provide for keeping the public informed of the estim

safe haven under current conditions? 

f. Does the plan address the communication of alternative routes an

modes? 

C1 

Does the plan describe the provisions and methods for alerting citizens that evacuation may be necessary? 

g. Does the plan contain sample/prescripted messages for use? 

a. Does the plan address informing evacuees of available transporta

access them, and any restrictions on what evacuees may carry wi

b. Does the plan address informing evacuees about when transporta

begin and end and the frequency of departure at designated pick-u

c. Does the plan establish times for public officials to provide updates

address informing the public on when to expect such updates? 

C2 Does the plan identify what will be done to keep evacuees informed 

during evacuation to reduce their level of mental and physical stress? 

d. Does the plan address informing evacuees of their destination bef

transport? 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 

e. Does the plan address informing the public and/or family members 

destination? 

f. Does the plan address providing the public with information about 

along evacuation routes and at shelters? 

g. Does the plan identify established web sites, hotlines, etc. where p

answers to their questions/concerns? 

h. Does the plan address communicating security measures to the p

concerned about possessions left behind? 

i. Does the plan identify support services that are available for those a. Does the plan indicate that highway conditions are reported on em

announcements for travelers en route? 

b. Does the plan identify Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) reso

communicate to the public (e.g., 511, changeable message signs, radio, web sites, etc.)? 

C3 

Does the plan describe the means the government will use to keep evacuees and the public informed on the specific actions they should take after the evacuation has started? c. Does the plan address contingency plans in place if normal means 

are unavailable? 

Evacuation of People with Special Needs Criteria Question 

a. Does the plan include provisions for movement of required assiste

wheelchairs, life support systems, service animals, and communic

b. Does the plan identify special needs populations in the community 

location (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, assisted care facilities, et

c. Does the plan contain provisions for coordination with the most ap

outreach agencies to transport special needs populations? 

d. Does the plan contain a policy with respect to bringing service anim

shelters or on board transit vehicles, planes, helicopters, etc.? 

N1 

Does the plan describe provisions for evacuating special needs populations including those in assisted living facilities, hospitals, and those living independently (e.g., people with physical, mental, cognitive, and developmental disabilities)? 

e. Does the plan include provision for sheltering these evacuees? 

a. Does the plan make provisions for schools and day care centers? b. Does the plan make provisions for mobile trailer parks and campgc. Does the plan make provisions for incarcerated residents (e.g., tho

juvenile facilities, and drug treatment centers)? 

d. Does the plan make provisions for transient populations (e.g., vaca

workers, homeless, etc.)? 

N2 

Does the plan describe provisions for evacuating other special needs populations (e.g., people in schools, day centers, mobile home parks, prisons, and detention centers, as well as people that do not speak English or who are tourists, seasonal workers, or homeless)? e. Does the plan make provisions for non-English speaking evacuees
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 

Operations Criteria Question 

a. Does the plan include monitoring evacuation operations of motoriz

water, and other modes of transportation to determine the adequaresources? 

b. Does the plan address contingency plans for obtaining additional e

vehicles, if needed? 

c. Does the plan provide coordination to prevent over-tasking of tran

where neighboring jurisdictions also require support from the same 

d. Does the plan address coordination with the next higher level of go

State, and State to Federal) to ensure unmet transportation resouridentified and requested to support evacuations? 

O1 

Does the plan include provisions to ensure availability of public and private transport modes and necessary transport operators? 

e. Does the plan address the use of standby contracts with motor co

paratransit providers, ambulance companies, railroads, air carriers

and vehicles to fill identified transportation shortfalls? 

a. Is the plan coordinated with the agencies and organizations that a

transportation resources? 

b. Does the plan include the use of public transit vehicles, school bus

vehicles? 

c. Does the plan include the use of non-government agency vehicles 

volunteer group vehicles, etc.) as a contingency? 

d. Does the plan identify accommodations for the transport of luggag

evacuees are informed about any restrictions or limitations? 

O2 

Does the plan describe the safe and practical transportation modes that will be available to move evacuees that cannot transport themselves (other than special needs populations)? 

e. Does the plan address provisions made to transport evacuees to p

areas? 

a. Does the plan require routes to be designated, marked, and comm

public? 

b. Does the plan address the safety of routes (e.g., roads, bridges, ra

airstrips, etc.) that will be used? 

c. Does the plan identify the provisions made to monitor traffic condit

routes and make operational adjustments as appropriate to maxim

d. Does the plan require critical operational changes be communicate

Operations Center (EOC) and the public? 

O3 Does the plan identify evacuation routes? 

e. Does the plan identify provisions to control access to evacuation ro

traffic flow? 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 

f. Does the plan address strategies and responsibilities for maintaini

capacity, especially with regard to work zones, toll collection, vehic

g. Does the plan identify a system for notifying and coordinating with 

jurisdictions about what routes will be used and when? 

h. Does the plan address strategies and responsibilities for providing 

restrooms, fueling stations, and rest stations for evacuees along thincluding those for special needs populations? 

i. Does the plan include resource lists to support evacuation routes (

needs identified above)? 

a. Does the plan contain specific contraflow plans that have been de

coordinated with all affected parties? 

b. Does the plan address strategies for emergency responders, trans

essential equipment to move inbound against the predominant out

c. Does the plan address communicating information to the public on 

and the beginning and ending times for contraflow operations? 

d. Does the plan identify a system for communicating and coordinatin

operations to neighboring jurisdictions? 

O4 Does the plan address the use of contraflow measures? 

e. Does the plan indicate that the contraflow plans have been tested 

or in a real evacuation? 

Sheltering Considerations Criteria Question 

a. Does the plan indicate whether the agreements provide for sufficie

the worst-case estimate for the number of evacuees that will need 

S1 

Does the plan require the establishment of mutual-aid agreements with other jurisdictions to formalize access to and use of shelters? 

b. Does the plan include provisions for notification and coordination w

non-governmental organizations, and other risk communities to adactivation and operations? 

a. Does the plan contain a system for keeping shelter information cu

evacuation? 

b. Does the plan contain a system for acquiring and communicating i

evacuees on the availability of non-public shelters such as hotels? 

c. Does the plan include provisions for keeping shelter operators info

and status of alternate shelters? 

S2 

Does the plan include provisions for informing shelter operators and evacuees about the locations of public shelters outside of the evacuation area and their status (e.g., full, accepting evacuees, accepting evacuees with pets, special needs shelters, etc.)? d. Does the plan require travel routes to the shelters and the shelters 

S3 Does the plan address strategies and a. Does the plan provide for food, water, and sanitation at shelters? 

responsibilities for shelter operations? b. Does the plan provide for first aid and mental health support at she
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 

c. Does the plan provide for security at shelters? d. Does the plan provide for disaster welfare information at shelters? e. Does the plan provide for special needs population sheltering? f. Does the plan provide for distinct population sheltering? g. Does the plan include a resource listing and capabilities to suppor

included in the above elements? 

h. Does the plan provide for refuges of last resort? a. Does the plan include provisions to evacuate people and their comb. Does the plan contain policy with respect to sheltering pets? c. Does the plan address communicating to the public the locations o

pets and if they are equipped to meet the needs of pets? 

d. Does the plan address measures for trying to reconnect families w

S4 Does the plan include provisions for the care and protection of animals? 

e. Does the plan address provisions for identifying and evacuating ot

animals in farms, kennels, veterinary hospitals, zoos, theme parksuniversity laboratories)? 

Mass Evacuation Training and Exercises Criteria Question 

a. Does the plan provide for trained personnel to support shelter man

T1 

Does the plan include provisions for training a volunteer cadre to support shelter management operations, transport of evacuees, and first aid stations along the evacuation routes, etc.? 

b. Does the plan provide for trained personnel to support the evacua

aid, information, etc.)? 

T2 

Does the plan require periodic reviews and updates of the plan, exercises, and after-action reports as part of the planning process? 

a. Does the plan require periodic reviews and updates of the plan, ex

action reports as part of the planning process? 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 C-13

General Approach 

The study methodology, illustrated in Figure C-1, started with an assessment of individual plans, 

followed by an assessment and comparison of the family of plans, which included the individual 

plans and the coordination with neighboring jurisdictions. The complete list of plans included in 

the assessment is presented in Appendix C. 

Figure C-1. Evacuation Plan Assessment Approach 

The individual plan reviews included three steps that began with a detailed assessment of 

individual attributes, and then “rolled up” the information to increasingly higher levels for an 

overall assessment. The first step examined how the plan addressed the evaluation attributes of 

each criterion. The second step weighted the attributes for each criterion to provide an 

assessment of that criterion. The third step evaluated the 20 criteria to give an overall 

assessment of how well the plan meets the criteria. The individual steps are described in more 

detail below. 

Step 1: Detailed assessment of how the plans address the individual attributes for each question. 

Each attribute is scored on a scale of 0 to 3. 

0 = the attribute was not met in the plan 

1 = the attribute was only partially met in the plan 

2 = the attribute was completely met in the plan 

3 = the plan exceeds the requirements of the attribute, and is a potential best practice. 

 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 C-14

Step 2: Scoring of the degree to which the plan addresses each question. 

The scores from each attribute were sorted into essential and non-essential. The scores from Step 

1 for each essential attribute were added and then divided by the total number of essential 

attributes within a given question to determine the average weighted score for that question. This 

produced a weighted score for each of the 20 questions for the plan. 

Step 3: Assessment of plans based on the cumulative results of the ratings. 

Each question is given a rating, and the plans are assessed based on the cumulative results of the 

ratings. The overall evacuation plan criteria ratings are listed in Table C-3. 

Table C-3. Ratings Used in the Assessment 

Rating Description 

4 All essential attributes are rated as “Meets” or higher, and all non-essential attributes are 

rated as “Partially meets” or higher.

3 At least 75% of essential attributes are rated as “Meets” or higher, and non-essential 

attributes are rated as “Does not meet.”

1 No more than 50% of the essential attributes are rated as “Partially meets,” and less than 

25% of the non-essential attributes are rated as “Does not meet.”

0 More than 25% of the essential attributes are rated as “Does not meet.”

Evaluation Consistency 

The evaluation forms, guidelines and instructions, a keyword search list, daily team review and 

reporting, and evaluation methodology training ensure consistency across the evaluations. 

Before beginning actual reviews, all team members reviewed and assessed a single “family of 

plans” to test the template and determine whether it is being applied consistently by the 

reviewers. Adjustments were made to the instructions and template as necessary. 

The team identified keywords for searching the documents to allow the reviewers to focus on 

key aspects of the evacuation plan and, therefore, reduce the amount of time spent on reviewing 

non-key portions of the plans. A worksheet template was developed for plan reviewers’ use in 

capturing their evaluations, and was used to document relevant facts applicable to the rating 

assigned to each plan or family of plans assessed. The plan review team compiled a qualitative 

assessment of their evaluation findings against the defined list of evaluation criteria using a 

ranking tool to indicate the degree of integration of each question in the plan. The result of the 

Definitions

Attributes: Detailed questions to describe and define the parameters of each criterion. 

Essential: If the attribute is not met, fulfilling the criteria and executing the evacuation is at 

serious risk of failure. 

Non-Essential: Fulfilling the criteria and executing the evacuation may be impaired or degraded if the 

attribute is not met, but will not result in failure by itself. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 C-15

assessments yielded a snapshot of the strengths and weaknesses of each plan reviewed. The 

team has also compiled the rating across the plans to observe trends and identify common 

problems that exist throughout the region. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 D-1 

Appendix D: Agencies and Participants in State and Local 

Meetings 

The contractor team prepared for the State Visits by prioritizing and organizing state details, 

notifying the participants, and then scheduling the visits in cooperation with the DHS. The 

contractor team worked with the U.S. DOT to schedule the site visits, which occurred as follows: 

March 22, 2006 – Jackson, Mississippi 

March 24, 2006 - Tallahassee, Florida 

April 3-6, 2006 – New Orleans, Louisiana 

April 10-11, 2006 – Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

April 24, 2006 – Austin, Texas 

May 11, 2006 – Montgomery, Alabama 

State and local representatives (typically State DOT, emergency management officials, highway 

patrol and state police, and local emergency management officials) participated in the 

collaboration meetings. The following pages provide a list of participants for each meeting. 

State Visit – Mississippi 

March 22, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

Mississippi Highway Patrol 

Mississippi National Guard 

Mississippi Emergency Management Agency 

Mississippi Office of Homeland Security 

Mississippi Department of Public Safety 

Federal Highway Administration 

U.S. DOT Office of the Secretary 

Mississippi Department of Public Safety 

Mississippi Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Mississippi Department of Health 

State Visit – Tallahassee, FL 

March 24, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

Florida Department of Transportation ESF 1/3 

ESF 1 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ESF 16 

Federal Highway Administration 

Florida Department of Emergency Management 

Florida Department of Transportation ESF 8 

Florida Department of Law Enforcement 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 D-2 

Florida County Emergency Managers – Conference Call 

April 3, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

Florida Department of Community Affairs 

Clay County 

Lake County 

Hillsborough County 

Indian River County 

Pinellas County 

State Visit – New Orleans, LA 

April 4, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

Department of Homeland Security 

Dir. Homeland Security, City of New Orleans 

Dir. of Emergency Medical Services, City of New Orleans 

Nationally Recognized Emergency Medical TechnicianParamedic, Medical Liaison 

New Orleans Office of Emergency Preparedness Emergency 

Response Coor., 

New Orleans Office of Emergency Preparedness, Executive 

Assistance to the Director of Homeland Security 

New Orleans Office of Homeland Security, Community 

Preparedness Planner 

New Orleans Office of Homeland Security 

New Orleans Office of Homeland Security, Terrorism Early 

Warning Program Mgr 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of HS, NOFA Liaison 

New Orleans Police Department, Department of Homeland 

Security, Community Hall 

State Visit – Louisiana State Police (LSP) Troop "B" 

April 4, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

LSP.B 

LSP.L 

Louisiana Department of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Homeland Security 

State Visit – Plaquemines Parish, LA 

April 5, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/OEP 

Department of Homeland Security 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

PPG 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 D-3 

State Visit – Plaquemines Parish, LA 

April 5, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

PPG EMS 

East Jefferson General Hospital/EMS 

PPG/ H/S 

PPG/ H/S 

State Visit – Jefferson Parish, LA 

April 6, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

JP EOC 

Department of Homeland Security 

Federal Railroad Administration 

State Visit – Baton Rouge, LA 

April 10, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

Dept of Health & Hospital Deputy Asst Sec 3 

Federal Railroad Administration Safety Inspector 

DSS Emergency Preparedness Coordinator 

American Red Cross, CEO LA Capital Area Chapter 

DOTD Emergency Coordinator 

DHH/OPH 

EMS Prog. Mgr 

Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency 

Preparedness (GOHSEP) Operations 

Louisiana State Police 

GOHSEP Preparedness Section Chief 

GOHSEP Operations 

GOHSEP/LANG Homeland Security Grant Prog. Mgr. 

State Visit – Baton Rouge, LA 

April 11, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency 

Preparedness (GOHSEP) Operations 

State Visit – Austin, TX 

April 24, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

Texas Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Texas Office of Homeland Security 

Texas Governor’s Division of Emergency Management 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 D-4 

State Visit – Montgomery, AL 

May 11, 2006 

Agency/Dept. 

Alabama Department of Transportation 

Alabama Emergency Management Agency 

Alabama Department of Human Resources 

Federal Highway Administration – AL 

Alabama Department of Public Safety 

Alabama Department of Transportation – Division 9 

Mobile Co. Emergency Management Agency 

Baldwin Co. Emergency Management Agency 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-1 

Appendix E: Best Practices 

 

Throughout the completion of this report, the U.S. DOT identified many lessons learned and best 

practices in the Gulf Coast States and beyond using the plan evaluations, State visits, and 

literature search as resources. In this appendix, the U.S. DOT has expanded upon some of the 

best practices that were found. 

While the wide variety of best practices range from a technology solution to a Governor’s 

Executive Order, they do share one commonality—the recognition that the plans and tools used 

to execute evacuations need to be revised to maintain their effectiveness. In all of these 

examples, there is an underlying belief that the public can always be served better. 

Texas Task Force Addresses Concerns About Decision 

Making and Management and Other Important Issues 

The Texas Task Force on Evacuation, Transportation, and Logistics was established in direct 

response to the evacuation concerns brought on by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita during the Fall of 

2005. Texas Governor Rick Perry, Houston Mayor Bill White, and Harris County Judge Robert 

Eckels established the Task Force to improve evacuation procedures for major cities in Texas. In 

a September 30, 2005 press release from the Office of the Governor, Governor Rick Perry stated, 

“This task force brings together some of the best and brightest minds in transportation, energy, 

academia and government who will help all levels of government learn from the experiences of 

Rita and establish better evacuation plans for future emergencies.” With the increased attention 

on the Gulf Coast States, events took place that defined lessons learned and recommendations to 

better address evacuations. 

To gather information for its final report, the Task Force held public hearings almost once a 

week from October 25, 2005 until December 13, 2005. During the public hearings, the Task 

Force invited State and local officials and additional stakeholders including evacuees, school 

officials, charitable organizations, relief workers, hospitals, medical personnel, individuals with 

special needs, and their caregivers. The Task Force also offered citizens the opportunity to give 

testimonies. Meeting locations varied in Texas cities such as Houston, Fort Worth, Corpus 

Christi, South Padre, San Antonio, and Beaumont. 

The final Task Force report was released on February 14, 2006, and included the following key 

areas that were the items most often addressed during the public hearings. Each area included a 

narrative on concerns, findings, and recommendations. 

1. Command, control, and communication 

2. Evacuation of people with special needs 

3. Fuel availability 

4. Flow of traffic 

5. Public awareness. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-2 

As a result of the final report recommendations, Texas Governor Rick Perry issued the Executive 

Order RP57 on March 21, 2006. This executive order has led to the implementation of some of 

the Texas Task Force recommendations that were included in the final report. The executive 

order instructs respective offices and officials on their roles and responsibilities regarding the 

recommendations being enacted. It provides that the State Director of Homeland Security will 

ensure the executive order is carried out consistent with the final report and recommendations of 

the Texas Task Force. 

Command, Control, and Communications 

The Emergency Management Directors including county judges and mayors within each of the 

state’s 24 Council of Governments will be responsible for establishing a Regional Unified 

Command Structure (RUCS). Each region will have an Incident Commander that will be the 

point of contact within the region during the disaster response, including mass evacuation. As 

stated by the Executive Order, each RUCS will be established by April 18, 2006. Also, the name 

of a person and qualifications of the Incident Commander should go to the Governor’s Division 

of Emergency Management by April 20, 2006. The Texas Department of Public Safety will be 

the lead in command, control, and communications and other operational tasks, as directed by 

the Governor, during evacuations and other disaster response operations that involve multiple 

RUCSs. 

The Executive Order also cites many tasks for the Governor’s Division of Emergency 

Management including: 

• Creating eight Regional Response Teams (RRTs) to support multi-jurisdictional operations. 

• Developing a statewide hurricane evacuation and shelter plan. 

• Overseeing the implementation of regional responses and evacuation plans within the State. 

• Coordinating with independent school districts and public colleges, universities, and the 

university system to provide transportation and facilities to support the execution of state and 

local evacuation and shelter plans. (In addition, the Governor’s Division of Emergency 

Management will develop policies for reimbursement to school districts and public colleges, 

universities, and university systems for evacuation, shelter and transportation expenses.) 

• Leading and directing annual hurricane evacuation exercises. 

Evacuation of People with Special Needs 

The Governor’s Division of Emergency Management will coordinate with the Department of 

State Health and Human Services, the Department of Aging and Disability Services, the 

Governor’s Committee on People with Disabilities, and other state agencies to define special 

needs and develop an evacuation and shelter plan that supports the requirements of the people 

with special needs. The above agencies, along with appropriate stakeholder groups, will work to 

develop criteria for the evacuation plans for special needs facilities, including both licensed and 

unlicensed facilities. The plan will also address the special needs population and the evacuation 

and sheltering needs of their service animals. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-3 

Additional tasks for the Governor’s Division of Emergency Management include: 

• Ensuring local jurisdictions and RUCSs approve evacuation plans maintained by special 

needs facilities. 

• Developing and implementing a statewide database to assist in the evacuation of people with 

special needs, especially jurisdictions on the coast having priority. Each RUCS will be 

responsible for collecting and providing information for the database. 

Fuel Availability and Distribution 

The Texas Department of Transportation will coordinate with the Texas Oil and Gas Association 

and other industry partners to develop a plan to address fuel availability along major evacuation 

routes and establish a fuel operations function in the State Operations Center to coordinate the 

distribution of fuel prior to and during evacuations. 

• Tasks for the Governor’s Division of Emergency Management include: 

• Working with local officials to develop evacuation plans that address fuel availability during 

an evacuation 

• Establishing fuel procedures for distribution during an emergency like an evacuation 

• Developing policies and procedures at the Division of Emergency Management to reimburse 

local governments and other support entities for evacuation fuel-related expenses in the event 

that the Texas Legislature or United States Congress designates funding for that purpose. 

Traffic Control and Management 

The Texas Department of Public Safety will oversee traffic management of the evacuation routes 

during multi-jurisdictional evacuations. Also, the Texas Department of Public Safety, in 

coordination with the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Customs and 

Border Patrol, is taking steps to expedite the flow of traffic through checkpoints on major 

hurricane evacuation routes and assist in the development of traffic management plans to 

accommodate mass populations at checkpoints. 

Tasks for the Texas Department of Transportation include: 

• Coordinating with the Texas Department of Public Safety to develop contraflow plans for 

major hurricane routes that were identified by the Texas Task Force final report 

• Implementing short- and long-term solutions to reduce congestion on the one-lane section of 

the U.S. Highway 290 at Brenham, Texas, during evacuations. 

• Starting the implementation of the infrastructure projects recommended in the March 2005 

report to the Governor on Texas Hurricane Preparedness. (The report addresses the 

obstructions on evacuation routes during mass evacuations.) 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-4 

Public Awareness 

The Public Utility Commission is to work with utility companies that are regulated by the 

Commission and serve counties in hurricane evacuation zones to include hurricane preparedness 

and evacuation-related public awareness information in monthly billing statements prior to and 

during the hurricane season each year. 

Additional Sources 

The following documents and resources were used to research this best practice: 

• Executive Order RP57 on implementing recommendations from the Governor’s Task Force 

on Evacuation, Transportation, and Logistics. March 21, 2006. 

http://www.governor.state.Texas.us/divisions/press/exorders/rp57/view. 

• Governor’s Task Force on Evacuation, Transportation and Logistics Final Report to the 

Governor. February 14, 2006. 

http://www.governor.state.Texas.us/divisions/press/files/EvacuationTaskForceReport.pdf 

• Berger, Eric. “Houston Area Must Quickly Pick Disaster Command.” The Houston 

Chronicle. March 22, 2006. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3739709.html. 

• Hughes, Polly Ross. “Heat Is on to Improve Plans for Evacuations.” The Houston Chronicle. 

March 25, 2006. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3747550.html. 

Mississippi and North Carolina Departments of Health 

Collaborate on After-Action Report 

A key component of the planning process is the completion of after-action reports. The purpose 

of after-action reports is to document the significant outcomes following a major event or 

exercise, and then integrate the findings into emergency management plans and standard 

operating procedures so that the problems encountered are mitigated during future response. All 

levels of government, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector engage in the after-action 

process. 

In addition to the after-action reporting carried out by the Mississippi Emergency Management 

Agency (MEMA), lead agencies for annexes to the State’s emergency management plan are in 

the process of finalizing their own after-action reports. One example is the Mississippi 

Department of Transportation (MDOT). Although its final report has not been released yet, 

MDOT has already identified the need to manage its fuel resources during all stages of a disaster 

more efficiently and effectively. As a result, MDOT will likely procure advanced reserves. 

MDOT is also reviewing how it works with the MEMA emergency operations centers as well as 

it own. MDOT typically produces an after-action report following every hurricane season. The 

after-action report for 2005 is even more important since Katrina has changed the transportation 

landscape, creating situations that State officials have not had to deal with in the past. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-5 

One challenge of developing an after-action report is balancing the subjectivity. Often, reviews 

are limited to internal sources, avoiding the risk that an outside expert may not be able to fully 

understand what occurred during the disaster. Ideally, there would be a peer review system. The 

Mississippi Department of Health (MDOH) and North Carolina Office of Emergency Services 

(OEMS) are in the process of developing a peer review system for the ESF-8: Public Health and 

Medical Services after-action report. 

Mississippi and North Carolina have a history of exchanging resources during disasters. For 

instance, the North Carolina Department of Health deployed 458 healthcare professionals to its 

field hospital in Waveland, Mississippi, following Hurricane Katrina through the EMAC 

system. North Carolina met other requests for assistance in Mississippi and Louisiana as well. 

This put North Carolina in a position to review the execution of Mississippi’s ESF-8 since North 

Carolina’s own resources were on the ground during the event, and the staff already understood 

the after-action report process from experiences in their own State. The OEMS also leveraged 

partnerships with Duke University, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (UNC-CH), 

and several other North Carolina State agencies to conduct an in-depth analysis of what 

happened to Mississippi’s sheltering system after the storm. In the coming weeks, an afteraction report will be released with findings and recommendations that will be much more 

detailed than MDOH could have done on its own. Mississippi’s ability to provide sheltering 

assistance to its residents will be greatly improved as well. 

Not only is OEMS’s review of MDOH’s actions during Hurricane Katrina an opportunity for 

exchange at the professional level, it is an example of how States continued to share their 

resources long after the event has passed. Throughout the after-action report process, MDOH 

has only been responsible for the travel costs for North Carolina officials and researchers to 

come to Mississippi. North Carolina’s State agencies participating in this process pay the 

salaries and other expenses for its staff members. Rather than viewing this as an additional cost, 

the North Carolina OEMS and its partners saw it as an opportunity to explore their own roles and 

responsibilities during a catastrophic event and review their own plan while promoting “winwin” collaboration at the State level. 

This after-action report project also demonstrates the number of organizations that could be 

involved in post-event analysis. For instance, the list of agencies that the North Carolina OEMS 

led during the past few months includes, but is not limited to: 

• North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, Public Health Preparedness and 

Response 

• Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Facility Services 

• Office of Emergency Medical Services 

• Public Health Regional Surveillance Teams from Forsyth and Cumberland Counties 

• Office of Citizens Services 

• Hospitals, including the State Medical Assistance Team Commander from Duke University 

• EMS systems 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-6 

• State Medical Examiners Office 

• UNC-CH public health researchers. 

Because of the in-depth level of analysis for the MDOH after-action report, MDOH has also 

worked independently of North Carolina’s study to address some of the problems it encountered 

last summer. While, in some cases, preliminary findings may be released, MDOH wants to be 

sure that the findings are as objective as possible when the final report is released around June 1, 

2006. MDOH intends to incorporate as many of the after-action report’s recommendations as 

possible based on its ability to fund and implement them. 

Some changes that MDOH is already working on in advance of the 2006 hurricane season 

include the designation of community colleges as shelters and the development of a partnership 

to improve the identification of the deceased. MDOH has reached out to community college 

presidents to pre-determine sites and buildings that could be used as special needs shelters. The 

goal is to place 100 to 120 special needs beds at each community college along with the requisite 

food, water, power supplies, and staff. The community colleges will also provide appropriately 

trained staff and students, including LPNs, RNs, and respiratory therapists, to serve at these new 

shelters. 

Following Hurricane Katrina, MDOH felt the need to increase the speed of identification of the 

victims of the hurricane and its aftermath. While they were able to utilize the Disaster Mortuary 

Operational Response Team through federal assistance, MDOH believes response can improve 

by partnering with the Mississippi Coroners’ Association and the Mississippi Department of 

Public Safety’s Bureau of Investigation. Currently, the State Comprehensive Emergency 

Management Plan (CEMP) appoints one person to be in charge of identification of the deceased. 

In the case of Katrina, this proved to be too much for one person. By sharing the responsibility 

among three organizations, MDOH hopes to improve the speed of identification and alleviate the 

burdens previously placed on a small group of people. These improvements combined with the 

recommendations from the after-action report should strengthen Mississippi’s plan for sheltering 

in the coming years. 

Contacts 

The following individuals provided information that contributed to the development of this 

practice: 

• Bob Chapman, Mississippi Department of Transportation 

• Art Sharpe, Mississippi Department of Health 

• Holli Hoffman, North Carolina Office of Emergency Medical Services. 

Louisiana Organization Provides Public Education in 21 

Parishes

The Terrebonne Parish Readiness and Assistance Coalition (TRAC) was born out of a call to 

action in response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992. As this community pulled together to help 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-7 

rebuild and raise homes for those in need, the founders of TRAC, 28 community organizations 

including emergency management, religious groups, and hospitals partnered to prepare and 

educate area residents. Ninety percent of the parish is wetlands or covered by open water. Many 

of the people in the area are low income and have language barriers. 

From that point forward, TRAC began developing community-specific outreach materials about 

preparedness and mitigation techniques. In 1998, TRAC received a Hazard Mitigation Grant 

from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program through the Louisiana Office of Emergency 

Preparedness, allowing them to design hurricane preparedness campaigns in 13 southeast 

Louisiana parishes. This campaign included preparedness programs in local nursing homes, 

childcare centers, day camps, schools, Boy Scout troops, and church groups, as well as public 

service announcements (PSAs) broadcast on the radio and educational materials distributed 

through newspapers, hardware stores, and grocery stores. 

Today, TRAC serves 21 parishes throughout southern Louisiana through a comprehensive public 

education campaign that includes print, television, radio, Web, and personal education and 

outreach. Updated in 2005 (prior to Hurricane Katrina), each part of the campaign reminds 

Louisiana residents that they must be prepared for hurricanes and corresponding evacuations. 

Much of the information that TRAC provides its residents 

could be used as baseline information for other disasters and 

by people who live in other parts of the country. It does not 

differ significantly from publications like FEMA’s Are You 

Ready guide. What TRAC does is convey the risks associated 

with hurricanes into the context of Louisianans’ geography 

and attitudes. This includes describing the long history of 

devastation and destruction of hurricanes in the State, 

including the storm that hit Chenier Caminanda in 1893 and 

Hurricane Betsy in 1965. TRAC also recognizes the 

geographic changes of Louisiana in recent years, explaining to 

residents that the Gulf is much closer to them and their homes 

than it was in the past. The combination of these elements in 

its campaign drives home the message that many of the things 

that make Louisiana unique in a positive way also put it at 

increased risk. 

In addition to TRAC’s general public education campaign, 

TRAC developed tools and resources for primary school-aged 

children. Andy and Allie Alligator provide guidance for 

children through stories, an interactive Web site, a curriculum 

for teachers, and the song “Pack, Board Up, and Boogie.” The same preparedness messages and 

information are transformed into a fun context so that kids can help their families remember 

everything that needs to be done in advance of a storm—including checking on the neighbors 

and “granny,” and leaving well ahead of a storm’s landfall. 

TRAC’s public education resources 

are quite extensive and have 

required a significant investment of 

financial resources over the past 14 

years. Communities interested in 

providing at least some basic 

information about emergency 

preparedness, but unable to 

produce something as 

comprehensive as TRAC, should 

leverage resources like FEMA’s Are 

You Ready guide and the 

Ready.gov brochure. 

Local communities, companies, and 

governments can download these 

resources and add their own logos 

and contact information for 

distribution to residents. If you live 

or work in southern Louisiana and 

would like to work with TRAC to 

reprint or distribute its materials, 

visit www.trac4la.com or call 877-

TRAC-4-LA. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-8 

TRAC also provides translations of most of its print and multimedia resources in French, 

Spanish, and Vietnamese as part of its efforts to ensure that it can reach all Louisianans. Part of 

TRAC’s current efforts includes utilizing software that will automatically translate materials 

from English to the other three predominant languages in Louisiana. TRAC leaders are seeking 

resources to print hard copies of its materials in these additional languages through the local 

libraries and community organizations. 

As TRAC has developed over the past 14 years, its leaders have learned that the messenger can 

be as important as the method of delivery. Peg Case, TRAC’s Executive Director, learned that 

not all audiences will listen to her. However, a group of off-shore oil workers, for example, will 

listen to TRAC’s message if their manager delivers it. As many studies have shown, people are 

more likely to listen to those they consider credible sources of authority. 

Using FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants and corporate donations, TRAC provides its Louisiana 

Storm Survival Guide through several outlets. TRAC realized early on that it could not rely on 

parish emergency management agencies alone to distribute its materials to residents. Over the 

years, TRAC has developed formal and informal distribution networks that include public 

libraries, Councils on Aging, home health networks, and direct response to anyone who calls the 

TRAC office. Web site visitors may chose to download the guide and other materials, or use the 

searchable online database to find the nearest library where they can pick one up. TRAC’s efforts 

to broaden its distribution channels helped alleviate the potential “additional” work added onto 

emergency managers. Because of its distribution network, TRAC was able to distribute more 

than 260,000 copies of its guide in 2005. 

The Louisiana Storm Survival Guide covers all stages of the storm cycle, from preparing homes 

prior to evacuation to providing New Orleans contraflow maps. It also provides information on 

tornadoes and thunderstorms—other common threats to Louisianans. 

In addition to the Louisiana Storm Survival Guide, TRAC has published and produced the 

following as part of its Campaign for Storm Safe Louisiana: 

• Vanishing Coast, Vanishing Safety...Surviving Louisiana Storms: A 30-minute preparedness 

program available on VHS and DVD. The video walks viewers through TRAC’s 10-Step 

Hurricane Survival Plan.

• Teaching Disaster Readiness to Louisiana Kids: An instructor’s guide for teaching children 

about storm preparedness.

• Andy and Allie Hurricane Series: A children’s series developed to help prepare and cope 

with hurricane threats.

• Disaster Preparedness for the Elderly and Disabled: An instructor guide available for 

healthcare professionals with an elderly and/or disabled clientele.

• The Buddy Guide: Information for residents who want to learn how to help friends or 

neighbors who might need assistance in preparing for storms.
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-9 

To help reach even more of Louisiana’s residents, TRAC works with television stations and 

cable providers to broadcast PSAs. Currently, two announcements are available in four 

languages. These PSAs serve as a stark reminder to Louisianans that they are at risk. 

A key component of everything that TRAC produces and prints is its toll-free number. TRAC’s 

limited staff and volunteers make every effort to answer and/or return each call received. These 

personal points-of-contact provide the opportunity to talk with the inquirer about their specific 

situation and needs. The service also helps create a connection between the caller and 

preparedness because there is a real human on the other end—not just an answering machine. 

TRAC realizes that each caller has a story to share. Every inquiry is logged into a database for 

future reference and analysis. 

After Hurricane Katrina 

In the initial days after Hurricane Katrina, TRAC’s employees found themselves in the unique 

position of having a working Web site and phone lines once they returned home. Many found 

TRAC on the Internet, and were looking for a way to help or get in contact with people in the 

area. TRAC responded by putting up an online database for volunteering and donations. 

During the past few months, TRAC has focused on its other mission—mitigation. Since its 

founding in 1992, TRAC has worked to help individuals and groups rebuild or repair their homes 

to better survive the inevitable catastrophic storms and flooding. TRAC’s success has resulted in 

a partnership with OxFAM to help expand this program and resources. One area under 

mitigation that TRAC’s Executive Director Peg Case would like to provide more information on 

is the importance of having the right type of insurance. Without it, many will not be able to 

rebuild and move on. 

In terms of its public education campaign, TRAC realizes that it needs to revise its videos and 

print materials to reflect the new realities and sensitivities. The organization is currently 

assessing the funding necessary to accomplish this goal. In the meantime, TRAC is still 

distributing the Louisiana Storm Survival Guide through local libraries and other partners. 

Although the landscape has changed, much of the information that residents need to know 

remains the same. 

Additional Sources 

The following documents and resources were used to research this practice: 

• The TRAC Website. The site includes all resources listed in the practice. 

• Peggy Case, TRAC Executive Director 

• FEMA and the State of Louisiana. Promoting Mitigation in Louisiana Performance Analysis. 

March 5, 2002. 

• Lewis, Joshua. “Louisiana Group Eyes Future Disasters.” Disaster News Network. May 23, 

2000. 

• Dunn, Travis. “Interfaith Helps LA Survivors.” Disaster News Network. March 11, 2003. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-10

Alabama Successfully Implements Contraflow Plan, Then 

Reviews 

With the annual threat of hurricanes and the need to prepare for other types of evacuation events, 

researchers and DOTs have been developing and refining contraflow plans for highway systems 

for many years. Contraflow plans, generally intended for large-scale events, enable 

transportation managers to increase capacity by reversing the traffic direction of one side of the 

highway. 

The State of Alabama’s Department of Transportation (ALDOT) developed its contraflow plan 

for Interstate 65 (I-65) several years ago, including a step-by-step checklist that ALDOT, the 

Alabama Department of Public Safety (ADPS), the Alabama Emergency Management Agency 

(AEMA), and other stakeholders utilize to implement the plan. Each year ALDOT, ADPS, and 

AEMA exercise the plan prior to hurricane season to test its systems, and serve as a refresher for 

those who have responsibilities if and when the plan is implemented. This year, the exercise will 

take place from May 17 to 18, 2006. The first day of the exercise involves the mobilization of 

personnel throughout the State and stepping up the alert system. The second day actually 

exercises the implementation of the contraflow plan, including manning all 30 traffic control 

points. 

The Alabama Contraflow Plan includes the pre-positioning of dedicated equipment on trailers 

such as variable message signs in ALDOT’s District Offices located close to the I-65 corridor. 

This plan addresses the need for additional resources throughout the State during an evacuation. 

While detailed, the plan is not rigid—to allow personnel in the field to make decisions on the 

ground. 

The strength of the Alabama Contraflow Plan is partly due to the fact that ALDOT works with 

its partners to identify and apply lessons learned to the plan at the end of every hurricane season. 

This implementation has become more important during the past two years. While the 

contraflow plan existed for several years, it was not subject to a “real-life” test until Hurricane 

Ivan in September 2004. After their experience with Ivan, officials in Alabama recognized that: 

• The real traffic conditions challenged the contraflow plan’s gaps and assumptions identified 

during previous exercises 

• Modifications to the northern terminus location, traffic, and traffic control in Montgomery 

needed to be made 

• Although traffic volume was light, extrapolations to larger events meant that competing 

traffic movements needed to be reduced by splitting interchanges 

• The intention to implement the plan on a response basis was false—the mere presence of 

ALDOT personnel contributed to the formation of queues, and to public outcry at the 

perceived failure of the contraflow plan 

• Reversing traffic on the day of landfall put personnel and traffic control devices at risk once 

winds reached 35 miles per hour. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-11

Alabama’s experiences with contraflow during Hurricane Ivan resulted in an improved plan, and 

prepared the State for a successful evacuation in July 2005 before Hurricane Dennis struck. By 

this point, the contraflow plan had been switched to a schedule-based system. Governor Riley 

announced to the public that lane reversal would only be available 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on July 

9. By scheduling the implementation of contraflow, personnel have time to get into position, 

clear the road, and stop lane reversal before nightfall. The limitation of contraflow to a day also 

helps with staffing issues as any extension would require identification and commitment of a 

complete second shift of personnel to contraflow, when they are needed elsewhere in the State. 

Following Hurricane Dennis, ALDOT and its partners at AEMA and ADPS were ready to 

implement contraflow again for Hurricane Katrina before the storm turned towards Mississippi 

and Louisiana. Officials monitored the situation until they could make the decision not to 

implement a lane reversal. 

As the State undergoes preparations for the 2006 hurricane season, it is also integrating 

additional changes to its contraflow plan. Officials are continuing to improve traffic patterns at 

the northern terminus. ALDOT and ADPS are collaborating to better define the roles and 

responsibilities of transportation personnel and state troopers acting in the field. One thing that 

Alabama officials have realized during the past two years is that the vehicles of state troopers are 

better suited to clear traffic—the public recognizes their vehicles and lights, and troopers have 

arrest authority that ALDOT personnel do not. 

In addition to using the real-life experiences of Hurricanes Ivan and Dennis, ALDOT has refined 

the way it collects feedback following its annual exercise. Due to the length of the exercise and 

the requirement for many to travel overnight, ALDOT dismisses its participants immediately 

following the exercise. Officials realized that after two days, many people could not effectively 

contribute to a lengthy post-exercise briefing. ALDOT now asks participants for their comments 

via email, which not only has increased the response rate, but also has improved the 

completeness and relevancy of the comments. Because the quality of the feedback has been 

improved, it is easier to integrate the lessons learned and address identified gaps in the 

contraflow plan. 

Other areas that Alabama recognizes as challenges to its contraflow plan include public 

perception of how fast traffic should move and the geography of its highway system. Media 

reports from the ground may find drivers who think that it will take between two and three hours 

to travel from the coast to Birmingham, a distance of approximately 250 miles. More realistic 

estimates would be a travel time of four hours during normal traffic, and seven to eight hours 

during periods of heavy traffic, including contraflow. Recognizing this problem, officials are 

looking at ways to improve media relations, and creating a brochure similar to Mississippi’s. 

The problem of Alabama’s highway geography is more difficult to address. U.S. Route 31, the 

designated southbound route for responders and transportation personnel during contraflow, 

basically runs parallel to I-65. While there are many places where east-west connections 

between U.S. 31 and I-65 are relatively close, there are times that the distance between the two 

highways is more than 20 miles. Furthermore, U.S. 31 and other secondary roads serve as access 

to evacuation routes from the Alabama coast and Florida Panhandle. Traffic jams have 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-12

developed in small towns and at intersections, affecting the entire highway system. Stretches of 

I-65’s shoulder lanes could be dedicated to emergency vehicles. However, several bridges only 

have two-foot-wide shoulders, making it dangerous, if not impossible, for responders to travel 

against the contraflow traffic consistently. This is one reason why contraflow plans are meant to 

be implemented only in extreme situations. 

ALDOT recognizes that their neighboring States’ contraflow plans must account for a larger 

evacuating population as well as an increased number of people who do not own their own 

vehicles. Alabama experiences relatively less traffic from the coast, a significant portion of 

which is driven by tourists who have their own vehicles. Similar to comprehensive emergency 

management plans, contraflow plans must take into account the demographic and geographic 

features of the jurisdictions they serve. 

Additional Sources 

The following documents and resources were used to research this practice: 

• George Connor, Alabama Department of Transportation 

• Major Patrick Manning, Alabama Department of Public Safety 

• FEMA National Situation Update: Sunday, July 10, 2005. 

• Ball, Jeffrey, Ann Zimmerman, and Gary McWilliams. “Rita’s Wrenching Exodus.” The 

Wall Street Journal Online. September 23, 2005. 

• Kaczor, Bill. “Hurricane Dennis roars toward the Gulf Coast after brushing past Florida 

Keys.” The Canadian Press. 2005. 

• Alabama Governor’s Press Office. “Governor Riley Orders I-65 Lane Reversal on Saturday.” 

July 9, 2005. 

• Alabama Department of Transportation. “Plan for Reverse-Laning Interstate I-65 In 

Alabama.” 

• Wolshon, Brian, Elba Urbina, and Marc Levitan. “National Review of Hurricane Evacuation 

Plans and Policies.” LSU Hurricane Center. 2001. 

• Manning, Patrick. “Hurricane Evacuation Plan.” Presentation at the February 14-15, 2006 

Contraflow Workshop. Orlando, FL. 

• The White House. “The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina – Lessons Learned.” 

February 2006. 

Florida Uses GIS Technology to Aid in Collecting and 

Sharing Sheltering Information 

A key component of Florida’s State Emergency Response Team (SERT) is its use of GIS 

technology. One way that that SERT uses GIS is to collect and provide information about open 

and closed shelters throughout the State to responders, government officials, and the public. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-13

At the present time, one can access the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) Mapper 

database via http://www.eoconline.org/EM_Live/shelter.nsf to view a list of open and closed 

shelters, the availability of space at special needs shelters, and other relevant details. The 

longitude and latitude coordinates of shelters are pre-populated to allow for quicker updating. 

County officials may choose to input updated data about shelter availability via the Web or by 

calling the SEOC where the GIS team can enter information directly into the database. This 

information is updated frequently during a disaster, assisting emergency managers, first 

responders, and the public to receive the important information they need about the availability 

of shelters. Information from the Mapper program may be used by local officials to update the 

media about shelter availability, and help them decide where to place variable message signs 

(VMS) along major evacuation routes to direct people to shelters. 

In addition to knowing where shelters are opened or closed, shelter operators rely on the outputs 

of models such as HURRicane EVACuation (HURREVAC), Consequence Assessment Tool Set 

(CATS), and Hazards US Multi-Hazards (HAZUS MH) to decide on the anticipated need for 

shelters inside and outside the zone of the storm’s impact. Each model provides an information 

layer that can be processed and posted to the SEOC secure site accessible by all county officials 

in Florida. Model results from CATS include population impacts as well as damage to 27 

different types of infrastructure, while HAZUS MH data includes damage cost estimates, debris 

amounts, and an estimate of the number needing shelter. The information on the secure site also 

contains information on evacuation routes and critical infrastructure that may be of importance 

when conducting a non-storm-related evacuation. Because SEOC Mapper is Web accessible, it 

is available anywhere where a connection can be established. For instance, some of the team that 

Florida sent to Mississippi in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina worked with the GIS team to 

obtain information using satellite phones to establish Internet connections. 

Since the 2004 hurricane season, the SERT GIS team has begun developing the next iterations of 

the SEOC Mapper database, the first of which is targeted to be released around the beginning of 

June 2006. One of the GIS team’s goals is to produce and provide real-time data. As the GIS 

team worked to improve back-end processes and redundancies, including moving to a multiple 

server system, it took into the account input from after-action reports and county emergency 

managers. One of the short-term improvements is to develop a more user-friendly system that 

will encourage more county officials to input shelter information directly into the system. The 

GIS team also hopes to provide a publicly available dynamic mapping system that will show 

only shelters that are open. Upon the release of the next version of the SEOC Mapper, the GIS 

team will provide training for system users. 

In addition to these improvements, the GIS team hopes to provide the public with additional 

features, including a search by address function as found on popular Internet search engines, 

surge zones, shelters, and the real-time overlay of watch and warning zones. This will provide 

the public with the opportunity to learn the risks to their homes during a hurricane or tropical 

storm. GIS staff have also recently sought training on how to broaden its use of the HAZUS 

model to include flood situations and other disasters—all of which may require shelters to be 

opened in safe locations for evacuees. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-14

Contacts 

The following individuals provided information that contributed to the development of this 

practice: 

• Patrick Odom, Florida Division of Emergency Management 

• Arvil White, Florida Division of Emergency Management. 

Orange County, Florida Support Emergency Management 

Plan with Training and Exercises 

Orange County, Florida, has established an annual exercise program to determine the ability of 

local governments to respond to emergencies. This training and exercise program is coordinated 

by the Orange County Office of Emergency Management (OEM). County departments and 

authorities, municipalities, and all other public and private emergency response agencies also 

bear the responsibility of ensuring that personnel with emergency responsibilities are sufficiently 

trained. The Orange County CEMP also requires that all agencies take necessary steps to ensure 

appropriate records are kept reflecting the emergency training received by their personnel. This 

program consists of four parts: 

1. Training Program – Under this program, OEM will coordinate all disaster preparedness, 

response, recovery and mitigation training provided to county personnel by the Florida 

Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) and FEMA. OEM will also provide schedules 

of the State emergency management training courses to appropriate county agencies. 

Applications for State and FEMA training courses will be submitted to the Executive 

Director of Emergency Management for approval and submission to FDEM. This includes 

training for local emergency response personnel. As part of the training program, the county 

has an Emergency Management Program Specialist (Education and Training) who is the 

point of contact for providing and coordinating the training and exercise cycle depicted in 

Figure H-1. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-15

Figure H-1. Orange County Florida, Exercise and Training Cycle

2. Exercise Program – Under this program, OEM ensures county disaster plans and procedures 

are exercised and evaluated on a continuing basis. Exercise after-action reports are completed 

and provided to participating agencies to ensure corrective action is taken. Subsequent 

exercises ensure previous discrepancies are reevaluated. Orange County’s exercise and 

training program tries to involve public and private agencies with emergency response 

functions. Emergency management officials of adjoining counties may be invited to 

participate or observe when appropriate. Representatives from county, municipalities, and 

State and Federal agencies in the local area, as well as non-governmental agencies (e.g., Red 

Cross, Salvation Army, United Way, etc.) participate and share information on respective 

roles and responsibilities during disasters. 

3. Exercise and Training Requirements – Annually, OEM conducts a large-scale mass 

casualty exercise including pre-exercise planning meetings and a post-exercise critique. This 

includes the conduct of an annual hurricane exercise, which may be held in conjunction with 

a State-sponsored hurricane exercise. Other exercises include one or more emergency 

responder exercises involving mass casualties under various scenarios (e.g., Hazmat, 

transportation accident, natural disaster, terrorist act, etc.). The exercises also include 

hurricane briefings; emergency management activities; and hurricane preparedness and 

training meetings with the County Administrator and staff, department heads, municipal 

officials, and all other governmental and private emergency response agencies. Hurricane 

and emergency management seminars are conducted as requested. In support of ongoing 

training, the OEM conducts disaster-planning meetings with hospitals, nursing homes and 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 E-16

assisted living facilities, shelter agencies, emergency transportation representatives, and 

home health care agencies.

4. Public Awareness and Education – In this aspect, county officials work to keep residents 

informed about disaster preparedness, emergency operations, and hazard mitigation. Public 

information in the disaster preparedness and emergency management area is divided into 

three phases—continuing education, pre-disaster preparation, and post-disaster recovery and 

mitigation. 

Additional Sources 

The following documents and resources were used to research this practice: 

• Orange County (Florida) Fire Rescue Department Office of Emergency Management and 

Emergency Support Function Planning Group. Orange County Comprehensive Emergency 

Management Plan. Updated May 1, 2003. 

• Orange County Government, Florida. Emergency Planning Website. 2006. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 F-1 

Appendix F: Hurricane Evacuation Models and Tools 

Over the past four decades of transportation infrastructure expansion and with the 9/11 disaster 

response and recent hurricane impacts, researchers and emergency management personnel have 

sought to better understand and predict the characteristics of evacuations. This research has led 

to the development of several models, which have contributed to planning for evacuations and, to 

a lesser extent, to the operational execution of evacuations. The following summarizes the 

current and most prominently applied models and tools used in two different contexts: 

1. Operational Tools for Hurricane Modeling and Information Sharing

a. SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) 

b. HURREVAC (HURRicane EVACuation) 

c. HAZUS-MH (HAZards US Multi-Hazards) 

d. CATS/JACE (Consequence Assessment Tool Set/Joint Assessment of Catastrophic 

Events) 

e. ETIS (Evacuation Traffic Information Systems)

2. Analytical Tools for Transportation Modeling and Analysis 

— NETVAC (NETwork emergency eVACuation) 

— MASSVAC (MASS eVACuation) 

— OREMS (Oak Ridge Evacuation Modeling System) 

While designed, developed, and deployed with different functionality, data requirements, user 

interface, and level of expertise and training required for operations, these modeling tools can be 

applied to assess some common objectives. 

Operational Tools for Hurricane Modeling and Information 

Sharing 

The most widely applied flooding model for evacuation analysis is the SLOSH model. 

Developed by the NWS to predict hurricane storm surge for a given set of conditions (e.g., 

hurricane strength, wind speed, and direction of movement, geography), it is also used to help 

plan evacuation routes and locate emergency shelters based on estimates of which geographic 

areas could be flooded under certain storm scenarios.54 The NHC, in coordination with Federal, 

State, and local organizations, has developed SLOSH models for over 38 water basins along the 

Atlantic and Pacific Ocean coastal areas; with 14 “SLOSH Basins” covering the state of 

Florida.55

HURREVAC is a model developed specifically for hurricane evacuations. The model was 

developed on behalf of FEMA by the USACE for use by emergency managers. The model is 

applied as an open ocean path tracking and projection tool while a hurricane is approaching and 

projects the anticipated course once it makes landfall. It is an operational tool, assisting decision 

makers in advance of and during an evacuation. HURREVAC draws information from a wide 

variety of sources including the NHC, inundation estimates from the SLOSH model, and 

information on the location, remaining capacity, and flooding potential of all the shelters in the 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 F-2 

area. It also estimates the time required to evacuate an area, which emergency managers use in 

determining when to commence evacuations.56

HAZUS-MH, developed by FEMA, is a loss estimation and risk assessment program covering 

earthquakes, hurricanes, and flooding. By modeling the physical world of buildings and 

structures and then subjecting it to the complex consequences of a hazard event, users can 

implement this tool to prepare for a natural disaster, respond to the threat, and analyze the 

potential loss of life, injuries, and property damage. In the HAZUS-MH program, three levels of 

intensity or detail can be applied, with each level utilizing base data requiring a progression of 

quality and detail input from the user. A user choosing the level of implementation would likely 

base the decision on the funds available for data gathering and input, as well as the level of detail 

required in the output.57 At a minimum, the model can allow a common assessment using base 

data taken from national publicly available data resources, and supplemented with more accurate 

and granular data from local users. 

HAZUS-MH was utilized by Broward County, Florida Sheriff’s Office personnel during 

Hurricane Jeanne, which struck South Florida on September 26, 2004. Utilizing wind swaths 

generated from FEMA’s HURREVAC 2000 software program, the Sheriff’s office integrated the 

wind data into the HAZUS application and updated the essential facilities information as it 

relates to public safety facilities to better gauge damage to them as well as to determine how 

many people would be utilizing designated shelters.58

Developed under the guidance of FEMA and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the 

CATS/JACE software provides disaster analysis in real time with an array of information 

integrated from a variety of sources. The software is deployable for actual emergencies with 

capabilities including contingency and logistical planning as well as consequence management.59

The CATS program integrates hazard prediction, consequence assessment and emergency 

management tools with critical population and infrastructure data. It uses tools and data that 

predict the hazard areas caused by manmade events and natural disasters including earthquakes, 

and hurricanes. CATS assists with estimating collateral damage to facilities, resources, and 

infrastructure, and creates mitigation strategies for responders.60

The U.S. DOT developed ETIS, another hurricane evacuation tool, in collaboration with FEMA. 

Created in direct response to significant traffic congestion problems occurring in southeastern 

states during Hurricane Floyd's 1999 near landfall, ETIS operates on a model that combines 

behavioral studies, data from past occurrences, and real-time data from ongoing incidents, 

including weather information, evacuation percentages, and tourist occupancy rates in affected 

areas.61 

ETIS is a GIS, Web-based tool that assists with collection and dissemination of transportation 

information during an evacuation. Transportation officials in each threatened state are 

responsible for inputting information for coastal counties on evacuation status, tourist 

occupancy, evacuation participation rates, and traffic count information. ETIS provides a 

platform for States and the FEMA Regional Operations Center to monitor the evacuation 

process. The system also provides a forecast of total cross-state traffic and the likely destinations 

of the evacuees.62 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 F-3 

Reports generated by ETIS that can be viewed through the Web site (www.fhwaetis.com) 

include: 

1. Shelter capacity by State 

2. Traffic count by State 

3. Traffic volumes by corridor 

4. Destination percentages by city 

5. Estimated State-to-State traffic. 

In addition, a series of tables and roadway-network graphics provide emergency managers with 

crucial information to help with decisions regarding highway lane usage and the provision of 

emergency services.63 

For example, ETIS was used in the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast region to assist with the 

evacuation of almost 400,000 people as Hurricane Lili approached the region in October 2002. 

As one FEMA Region 6 Hurricane Program Manager noted, “Deploying the ETIS technology 

during the approach of Hurricane Lili allowed us for the first time to gather more evacuation 

information in one place than had ever been possible before. Information is power in a crisis 

situation, and Hurricane Lili gave us a glimpse of the future, where information will help avoid 

traffic jams that endanger the progress of emergency evacuations."64

“The ETIS program, used in conjunction with a DOT/FEMA organized Evacuation Liaison 

Team, is designed to be useful in helping State and local managers anticipate State-to-State 

traffic.”65

U.S. DOT continues to refine ETIS with additional query capabilities on the available data in the 

system. During visits to Florida and Mississippi as part of this study, both States expressed their 

support for ETIS as a valuable tool. In addition, they recommended that U.S. DOT continue to 

refine ETIS to make traffic data more real-time and easier for States to upload through automatic 

links with the State’s Traffic Management Centers. 

Analytical Tools for Transportation Modeling and Analysis 

Flow Model 

NETVAC was developed by Dr. Yossi Sheffi, Dr. Hani S. Mahmassani, and Dr. W.B. Powell at 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1982 as part of the reaction to the Three-Mile 

Island nuclear reactor incident in 1979.66 While strong in terms of a response to a Point-A-toPoint-B situation, it is limited in application to hurricane evacuation, which often include 

multiple Points A and B. However, transportation and emergency managers may seek to use this 

model to analyze route selection, intersection controls, and lane management.67 

MASSVAC followed NETVAC in development by Antoine G. Hobeika and Changkyun Kim in 

1985, “as a simulation model designed for the analysis and evaluation of evacuation plans for 

urban areas threatened by natural disasters,” including floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other 

related events. It is capable of simulating the flow on highway networks and identifying the 

available efficient routes from a hazard area to the nearest shelters and calculating the evacuation 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 F-4 

time for the network. It also considers traffic flow at the county macro-level, and “has been used 

in several applications, including a test of operational strategies for hurricane evacuations in 

Virginia.”68 

In the mid 1990s, the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratories Center for 

Transportation Analysis developed the OREMS, “to simulate traffic flow during various defenseoriented emergency evacuations.” OREMS is based upon approved FHWA models and has been 

deployed to several State DOTs and other user communities, although not empirically validated 

by the developers in a hurricane evacuation event. OREMS is a probabilistic model that uses 

network characteristics that, while improved with local knowledge, can be produced with 

baseline data inputs. Like NETVAC, OREMS shows how a solution for one homeland security 

problem (terrorist incident) can be cross-applied to another (hurricanes).69 OREMS takes a 

consequence management approach, and “encompasses those measures aimed at alleviating the 

physical, socio-economic, and psychological effects” of an evacuation event.70 The addition of 

these factors to transportation network models provides a more dynamic model for evacuation 

planners.71 The developers of OREMS see it as only a step in the process to create an intelligent 

consequence management (ICM) system, which would be able to leverage real-time data using 

wireless networks, ITS, and GIS information.72 While the original OREMS can use a baseline 

data input, the more detailed “local” knowledge (e.g., traffic controller, road construction and 

maintenance status, etc.) will improve the alternatives for planners to consider. The benefit of 

this approach is that OREMS can produce a network analysis “on the fly,” but it is improved 

with more detailed data input. The challenge of this systematic approach is that a great deal of 

data must be first inputted, tested, analyzed, and verified before it can become operationally 

useful, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive for users. However, in the long term, an 

ICM could prove useful to evacuation planners, including those at the U.S. DOT, with a tool that 

can handle large-scale evacuations. 

In addition to nationally focused studies, the Gulf Coast States have invested in the study of 

models on their own. In April 2005, the University of Central Florida Center for Advanced 

Transportation Systems Simulation published a study for the Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) that “investigated the relationships between a number of identifiable 

components that make up emergency evacuation, and how they can be integrated into a 

framework for modeling hurricane events.”73 These new models will serve as a scientific basis 

for updated regional evacuation plans.”74
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 G-1 

Appendix G: Texas Executive Order - RP57 

Please note the Executive Order RP57 was obtained from Texas Governor Rick Perry’s Web site at 

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/exorders/rp57. 

Executive Order - March 21, 2006 

Relating to implementing recommendations from the Governor's Task Force on 

Evacuation, Transportation, and Logistics. 

BY THE 

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Executive Department 

Austin, Texas 

March 21, 2006 

WHEREAS, the Governor's Task Force on Evacuation, Transportation and Logistics was 

appointed to document the lessons learned from the Hurricane Rita evacuation, identify key 

challenges of urban area mass evacuations in Texas, and recommend improvements to state, 

regional, and local evacuation planning and execution; and 

WHEREAS, the Task Force conducted public hearings across Texas to gather and document 

input from stakeholders to develop recommendations; and 

WHEREAS, on February 14, 2006, the Task Force issued a final report containing 

recommendations to improve the State's ability to plan and execute mass evacuations in the five 

key areas: command, control, and communications; evacuation of people with special needs; fuel 

availability; traffic flow; and public awareness; 

NOW THEREFORE, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, by virtue of the power and authority 

vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas, do hereby order the following 

1. Direction and oversight. The State Director of Homeland Security shall ensure this executive 

order is carried out in a manner consistent with the report and recommendations of the Task 

Force. 

2. Command, control, and communications. To improve command, control, and 

communications during mass evacuations, the Emergency Management Directors (County 

Judges and Mayors) within each of the state's 24 Councils of Government shall establish a 

Regional Unified Command Structure (RUCS), and appoint a single Incident Commander for the 

Regional Unified Command Structure. Each Regional Unified Command Structure will be 

responsible for preparing for and responding to catastrophic events within the region. Each 

Incident Commander will be the operational commander within the region during a disaster 

response, including a mass evacuation. An Incident Commander will serve a term of not less 

than one year. The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall oversee the 

implementation of the Regional Unified Command Structure throughout the state. Each Regional 

Unified Command Structure shall be established no later than April 18, 2006, and the 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 G-2 

composition of regional unified command, to include the name and qualifications of the Incident 

Commander, shall be provided to the Governor's Division of Emergency Management no later 

than April 20, 2006. 

The Texas Department of Public Safety shall provide to each Regional Unified Command 

Structure a senior-level commissioned officer with appropriate staff to represent the State as each 

Regional Unified Command Structure prepares for and responds to a catastrophic event within 

the region. 

The Texas Department of Public Safety shall assume responsibility for command, control, and 

communications, as well as other operational tasks as directed by the Governor, during 

evacuations and other disaster response operations that involve multiple Regional Unified 

Command Structures. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall create eight Regional Response 

Teams (RRTs) to support multi-jurisdictional operations during catastrophic events. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall develop a statewide hurricane 

evacuation and shelter plan to save lives and reduce the vulnerability of Texans in the event of 

disasters. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall oversee the implementation of 

regional response and evacuation plans throughout the state. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall coordinate with independent school 

districts and public colleges, universities and university systems to provide transportation assets 

and facilities to enable the execution of state and local evacuation and shelter plans. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall develop policies and procedures to 

reimburse school districts and public colleges, universities and university systems for evacuation, 

shelter, or transportation-related expenses in the event that the Texas Legislature or United States 

Congress designates funding for this purpose. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall direct an annual hurricane evacuation 

exercise to test the readiness of state and local evacuation and sheltering plans in the event of a 

disaster. 

3. Evacuation of people with special needs. To ensure the safe and efficient evacuation of 

Texans with special needs in the event of a disaster, I hereby direct the Governor's Division of 

Emergency Management to coordinate with the Department of State Health Services, the 

Department of Aging and Disability Services, the Governor's Committee on People with 

Disabilities, and other appropriate state agencies to define the term "special needs," and develop 

a statewide evacuation and shelter plan for persons with special needs. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall coordinate with the Department of 

State Health Services, the Department of Aging and Disability Services, the Governor's 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 G-3 

Committee on Persons with Disabilities, other appropriate state agencies, local governments, and 

appropriate stakeholder groups to develop criteria for evacuation plans for all special needs 

facilities, to include both licensed and unlicensed facilities. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall ensure local jurisdictions and 

Regional Unified Command Structures approve evacuation plans maintained by special needs 

facilities. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall develop and implement a statewide 

database to assist in the evacuation of the special needs population, with coastal jurisdictions as a 

priority. RUCS shall be responsible for collecting and providing information for the statewide 

database. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall develop and implement a plan to 

address the evacuation and sheltering needs of individuals with companion animals. 

4. Fuel availability and distribution. To improve fuel availability and distribution during a 

mass evacuation, I do hereby direct the Texas Department of Transportation to coordinate with 

the Texas Oil and Gas Association and other industry partners to develop a plan to address fuel 

availability along major evacuation routes and establish a fuel operations function in the State 

Operations Center to coordinate the distribution of fuel prior to and during evacuations. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall work with local officials to ensure 

locally developed evacuation plans address fuel availability during an evacuation. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall establish procedures to distribute fuel 

in a prioritized manner during an emergency. 

The Governor's Division of Emergency Management shall develop policies and procedures to 

reimburse local governments and other support entities for evacuation-related fuel costs in the 

event that the Texas Legislature or United States Congress designates funding for this purpose. 

5. Traffic control and management. To improve traffic control and management during a mass 

evacuation, I do hereby direct the Texas Department of Public Safety to assume traffic 

management authority over designated evacuation routes during multi-jurisdictional evacuations 

in order to move large populations and heavy traffic in a highly-coordinated manner. 

The Texas Department of Transportation shall coordinate with the Texas Department of Public 

Safety to develop contra-flow plans for major hurricane evacuation routes as identified by the 

Task Force on Evacuation, Transportation and Logistics. 

The Texas Department of Transportation shall implement short and long-term solutions to reduce 

congestion on the one-lane section of U.S. Highway 290 at Brenham, Texas, during an 

evacuation. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 G-4 

The Texas Department of Transportation shall prioritize for implementation the infrastructure 

projects recommended in the March 2005 Report to the Governor on Texas Hurricane 

Preparedness, which address obstructions on evacuation routes during mass evacuations. 

The Texas Department of Public Safety shall coordinate with the Department of Homeland 

Security and the United States Customs and Border Patrol to expedite the flow of traffic through 

checkpoints on major hurricane evacuation routes and assist in developing traffic management 

plans to accommodate increased volume at checkpoints during evacuations. 

6. Public awareness. To increase public awareness, I do hereby direct the Public Utility 

Commission to work with utility companies that are regulated by the Commission and serve 

counties in hurricane evacuation zones to include hurricane preparedness and evacuation-related 

public awareness information in monthly billing statements prior to and during the hurricane 

season each year. 

This executive order supersedes all previous orders in conflict or inconsistent with its terms and 

shall remain in effect and in full force until it expires by statute or it is modified, amended, 

rescinded, or superseded by me or by a succeeding governor. 

Given under my hand this the 21st day of March, 2006. 

RICK PERRY(Signature)

Governor 

Attested by: 

ROGER WILLIAMS(Signature)

Secretary of State 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 H-1 

Appendix H: Coordination and Command for Mass 

Evacuations 

In Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (HSPD-5), President Bush called on the Secretary 

of Homeland Security to develop a national incident management system to provide a consistent 

nationwide approach for Federal, State, tribal and local governments to work together to prepare 

for, prevent, respond to and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size or 

complexity. On March 1, 2004, after close collaboration with State and local government 

officials and representatives from a wide range of public safety organizations, Homeland 

Security issued the National Incident Management System (NIMS), which incorporates many 

existing best practices into a comprehensive national approach to domestic incident management, 

applicable at all jurisdictional levels and across all functional disciplines. 

The NIMS represents a core set of doctrine, principles, terminology, and organizational 

processes to enable effective, efficient and collaborative incident management at all levels. To 

provide the framework for interoperability and compatibility, the NIMS is based on a balance 

between flexibility and standardization. One of the most important practices that has been 

incorporated into the NIMS is the Incident Command System (ICS), a standard, on-scene, allhazards incident management system already in use by firefighters, hazardous materials teams, 

rescuers, and emergency medical teams. The ICS has been established by the NIMS as the 

standardized incident organizational structure for the management of all incidents. 

NIMS standard incident command structures are based on the following three key organizational 

systems: 

1. Multiagency Coordination Systems: These define the operating characteristics, interactive 

management components, and organizational structure of supporting incident management 

entities engaged at the Federal, State, local, tribal, and regional levels through mutual-aid 

agreements and other assistance arrangements. 

2. ICS: The ICS defines the operating characteristics, interactive management components, and 

structure of incident management and emergency response organizations engaged throughout 

the life cycle of an incident. 

3. Public Information Systems: These refer to processes, procedures, and systems for 

communicating timely and accurate information to the public during crisis or emergency 

situations. 

In a letter written in October 2005, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the 

Governors that Hurricane Katrina was a stark reminder of how critical it is for our nation to 

approach incident management in a coordinated, consistent, and efficient manner. Secretary 

Chertoff emphasized that all levels of government need to work together to prevent, prepare for, 

respond to, and recover from any emergency or disaster. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 H-2 

To better understand how ICS and NIMS relate to catastrophic evacuations, this appendix 

provides a description of the major components of the command structure for Federal, State, and 

local governments as discussed in Chapter II of this report. 

HSPD-5 designates the Secretary of Homeland Security as the “principal Federal official” (PFO) 

for domestic incident management.”75 The U.S. DOT plays support or leadership roles in many 

areas of emergency management, including Emergency Support Function (ESF) 1, 

Transportation, under the NRP. No incident, whether an evacuation is involved or not, can be 

successfully prepared for or recovered from without the movement of people and goods using 

our nation’s transportation systems. In addition to the roles defined in the NRP, such as 

providing emergency exemptions on the transport of hazardous materials like fuel, the U.S. DOT 

also assists with preparation by supporting the development of intelligent transportation systems, 

and developing guidance for transportation professionals on emergency management. These 

roles are outlined in detail later in this appendix. 

Multiagency Coordination Entity

This entity functions within a broader multiagency coordination system. It may establish 

priorities among incidents and associated resource allocations, de-conflict agency policies, and 

provide strategic guidance and direction to support incident management activities.76

Interagency Incident Management Group (IIMG) 

The IIMG is a Federal headquarters-level multiagency coordination entity that facilitates 

strategic Federal domestic incident management for Incidents of National Significance. The 

Secretary of Homeland Security activates the IIMG based on the nature, severity, magnitude, and 

complexity of the threat or incident. The Secretary of Homeland Security may activate the IIMG 

for high-profile, large-scale events that present high-probability targets, such as National Special 

Security Events (NSSEs), and in heightened threat situations. The IIMG is comprised of senior 

representatives from DHS components, other Federal departments and agencies, and NGOs, as 

required.77

Joint Field Office (JFO) Coordination Group 

Utilizing the NIMS principle of Unified Command, JFO activities are directed by a JFO 

Coordination Group, which may include the PFO, Senior Federal Law Enforcement Official 

(SFLEO), Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO)/Federal Resource Coordinator (FRC), or other 

SFOs with primary jurisdictional responsibility or functional authority for the incident. 

The JFO Coordination Group also includes a limited number of principal State, local, and tribal 

officials (such as the State Coordinating Officer or SCO), as well as NGO and private-sector 

representatives. The JFO Coordination Group functions as a multiagency coordination entity and 

works jointly to establish priorities (single or multiple incidents) and associated resource 

allocation, resolve agency policy issues, and provide strategic guidance to support Federal 

incident management activities. Generally, the PFO, in consultation with the FCO and SFLEO, 

determines the composition of the JFO Coordination Group.78
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 H-3 

PFO: The PFO is the local representative of the Secretary of DHS, appointed to oversee, 

coordinate, and execute the Federal government’s incident management responsibilities for 

Incidents of National Significance. Moreover, the PFO addresses long-term care and 

treatment of affected persons, implements additional measures for community restoration, 

incorporates mitigation measures and techniques as feasible, evaluates the incident to identify 

lessons learned, and develops initiatives to mitigate the effects of future incidents. 

Depending on the magnitude of the disaster, however, a PFO may not always be designated, 

in which case the FCO will provide the Federal lead.79

SFLEO: The SFLEO is the senior law enforcement official from the agency with primary 

jurisdictional responsibility as directed by statute, Presidential directive, existing Federal 

policies, and/or the Attorney General. The SFLEO directs intelligence and investigative law 

enforcement operations related to the incident and supports the law enforcement component 

of the Unified Command on scene. In the event of a terrorist incident, this official will 

normally be the FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC).80

FCO: The FCO manages and coordinates Federal resource support activities related to Stafford 

Act disasters and emergencies. The FCO is responsible for coordinating the timely delivery 

of Federal disaster assistance resources and programs to the affected State and local 

governments, individual victims, and the private sector. The FCO assists the Unified 

Command and/or the Area Command, and works closely with the PFO, SFLEO, and other 

SFOs. In Stafford Act situations where a PFO has not been assigned, the FCO provides 

overall coordination for the Federal components of the JFO.81

FRC: In non-Stafford Act situations when a Federal department or agency acting under its own 

authority has requested the assistance of the Secretary of Homeland Security to obtain 

support from other Federal departments and agencies, DHS designates an FRC. In these 

situations, the FRC coordinates support through interagency agreements and MOUs. Relying 

on the same skill set, DHS may select the FRC from the FCO cadre or other personnel with 

equivalent knowledge, skills, and abilities. The FRC is responsible for coordinating the 

timely delivery of resources to the requesting agency.82

SCO: The SCO represents the State, and is appointed to manage State resource support 

activities related to disasters and emergencies. The SCO is the State’s principal point-ofcontact with the Federal Government. Additionally, the SCO is responsible for coordinating 

the timely delivery of State disaster assistance resources and programs to the affected local 

governments, individual victims, and the private sector. The SCO works with the FCO to 

identify emergency response requirements for the State.83

Multiagency Coordination Centers 

Multiagency coordination centers and emergency operations centers (EOCs) provide central 

locations for operational information-sharing and resource coordination in support of on-scene 

efforts.84
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 H-4 

Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) 

The HSOC is the primary national hub for domestic incident management operational 

coordination and situational awareness. The HSOC is a standing 24/7 interagency organization 

fusing law enforcement, national intelligence, emergency response, and private sector reporting. 

The HSOC facilitates homeland security information-sharing and operational coordination with 

other Federal, State, local, tribal, and nongovernmental EOCs.85

National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) 

The NRCC is a multiagency center that provides overall Federal response coordination for 

Incidents of National Significance, including coordinating the use of Federal remote sensing and 

disaster assessment support, and emergency management program implementation. During an 

incident, the NRCC operates on a 24/7 basis or as required in coordination with other elements 

of the HSOC. To support incident operations, more than 40 departments and agencies from 

activated ESF primary and support agencies provide representatives to augment the NRCC. 

Moreover, FEMA maintains the NRCC as a functional component of the HSOC in support of 

incident management operations. The NRCC monitors potential or developing Incidents of 

National Significance and supports the efforts of regional and field components. If required, the 

NRCC will activate and deploy national-level entities such as the National Disaster Medical 

System, Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces, Mobile Emergency Response Support, and 

Emergency Response Team (ERT).86

Regional Response Coordination Center (RRCC) 

The RRCC is a standing facility operated by FEMA that is activated to coordinate regional 

response efforts, establish Federal priorities, and implement local Federal program support until 

a JFO is established in the field and/or the PFO, FCO, or FRC can assume their National 

Response Plan coordination responsibilities. The RRCC establishes communications with the 

affected State emergency management agency and the NRCC, and coordinates deployment of 

the Emergency Response Team–Advance Element (ERT-A) to field locations. Moreover, the 

RRCC assesses damage information, develops situation reports, and issues initial mission 

assignments.87

JFO 

The JFO is a multiagency coordination center established locally. It provides a central location 

for coordination of Federal, State, local, tribal, nongovernmental, and private sector 

organizations with primary responsibility for threat response and incident support. The JFO 

enables the effective and efficient coordination of Federal incident-related prevention, 

preparedness, response, and recovery actions. The JFO organization adapts to the magnitude and 

complexity of the situation at hand, and incorporates the NIMS principles regarding span of 

control and organizational structure including management, operations, planning, logistics, and 

finance and administration. Although the JFO uses an ICS structure, it does not manage on-scene 

operations. Instead, the JFO focuses on providing support to on-scene efforts and conducts 

broader support operations that may extend beyond the incident site.88 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 H-5 

State (and Local) EOCs 

The State EOC is a physical location at which the coordination of information and resources to 

support state incident management activities normally takes place. The State EOC may be a 

temporary facility or may be located in a more central or permanently established facility, 

perhaps at a higher level of organization within a jurisdiction. Moreover, it may be organized by 

major functional disciplines (e.g., fire, law enforcement, and medical services). When advance 

warning of potential disaster or emergencies is possible, DHS through its HSOC may deploy and 

request other Federal agencies to deploy liaison officers and personnel to the State EOC to assess 

the emerging situation. During an emergency, the State Governor will activate the State EOC.89

Incident Command 

As noted in the introduction, ICS is a standard, on-scene, all-hazards incident management 

system already in use by the Federal, State, local first responder community. 

Area Command (Unified Area Command Structure) 

An Area Command is established to oversee the management of multiple incidents that are each 

being handled by a separate ICS organization or to oversee the management of a very large or 

complex incident that has multiple incident management teams engaged. An Area Command 

Structure becomes a Unified Area Command Structure when incidents are multi-jurisdictional. 

Agencies work together through the designated members of the Unified Command to establish 

their designated Incident Commanders at a single Incident Command Post (ICP) and to establish 

a common set of objectives and strategies and a single Incident Action Plan. The organization 

has the responsibility to set overall strategy and priorities, allocate critical resources according to 

priorities, ensure that incidents are properly managed, and ensure that objectives are met and 

strategies followed. 90 

ICP 

This is the field location at which the primary tactical-level, on-scene incident command 

functions are performed. The ICP may be collocated with the incident base or other incident 

facilities and is normally identified by a green rotating or flashing light.91

Other Coordination Entities 

Federal 

• Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA): DSCA refers to Department of Defense 

(DOD) support provided by Federal military forces, DOD civilians and contract personnel, 

and DOD agencies and components in response to requests for assistance during domestic 

incidents to include terrorist threats or attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies 

including mass evacuations.92

• Emergency Support Functions (ESFs): The ESFs serve as the coordination mechanism to 

provide assistance to State, local, and tribal governments or to Federal departments and 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 H-6 

agencies conducting missions of primary Federal responsibility. ESFs are activated by the 

NRCC or the RRCC and liaisons for each ESF receive mission assignment through the JFO. 

Overall, there are 15 ESFs identified in the NRP, including the following ESFs primarily 

involved in a mass evacuation event: Transportation (ESF-1), Emergency Management 

(ESF-5), Mass Care, Housing and Human Service (ESF-6), Resources Support (ESF-7), 

Public Health and Medical Services (ESF-8), Agriculture and Natural Resources (ESF-11), 

Public Safety and Security (ESF-13), and External Affairs (ESF-15).93

• ESF Coordinator: The ESF Coordinator has ongoing responsibilities throughout the 

prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation phases of incident management. 

The role of the ESF coordinator is carried out through a unified command approach as agreed 

upon collectively by the designated primary agencies. The responsibilities of the ESF 

coordinator include pre-incident planning and coordination, maintaining ongoing contact 

with ESF primary and support agencies, conducting periodic ESF meetings and conference 

calls, coordinating efforts with corresponding private-sector organizations, and coordinating 

ESF activities relating to catastrophic incident planning and critical infrastructure 

preparedness as appropriate.94

U.S. DOT’s Emergency Management Support Functions and Capabilities 

• ESF-1: Responsibilities are to assist Federal, State, and local agencies; tribal governmental 

entities; and voluntary organizations requiring transportation for incidents requiring Federal 

coordination. Activities within the scope of ESF-1 functions include processing and 

coordinating requests for Federal and civil transportation support as directed under NRP; 

reporting damage to transportation infrastructure as a result of the incident; coordinating 

alternate transportation services; coordinating the restoration and recovery of the 

transportation infrastructure; performing activities conducted under the direct authority of 

U.S. DOT elements such as air, maritime, surface, rail, and pipelines; and coordinating and 

supporting prevention, preparedness, and mitigation among transportation infrastructure 

stakeholders at the State and local levels.95 Within DOT, the Department’s Emergency 

Response Team is the coordinating organization for emergency response to meet both the 

statutory and ESF-1 responsibilities of the Department. 

• U.S. DOT Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response (S-60): S-60 serves 

as U.S. DOT’s focal point for leadership and direction on intelligence and emergency 

management matters, and executes the Secretary’s delegated statutory and administrative 

authorities for U.S. DOT emergency management. S-60 is the catalyst for all Departmental 

emergency management efforts, and is responsible for affecting the Secretary’s statutory 

responsibilities for transportation emergency management nationwide. As U.S. DOT’s 

leading office on transportation emergency management, S-60 directs the Department’s 

overall prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. These key duties include 

providing support for the Department’s Emergency Response Team; providing transportation 

threat notifications; directing the intra- and inter-agency emergency coordination efforts at 

the regional level; developing and maintaining U.S. DOT’s emergency management strategy, 

policies, and plans; and operating the DOT Crisis Management Center (CMC). 

• Crisis Management Center: The CMC serves as the central information communications 

center for the U.S. DOT. The CMC information systems, facilities, and staff collect, receive, 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 H-7 

analyze, synthesize, develop, and distribute transportation information. On a routine basis, 

the CMC serves as the Department’s central information center for the dissemination and 

interchange of information among operating administration senior staff, emergency support 

staff, other Federal agencies, foreign transportation authorities, State and local government 

agencies, and the transportation industry. The CMC operations include provisions for 

developing lines of communications and promoting information interchange with 

transportation industry partners.

• Modal Emergency Coordinators (ECs): The U.S. DOT modal ECs serve as the primary 

emergency points of contact for all U.S. DOT operating administrations. In addition, 

Headquarters ECs may have regional or division-level ECs assigned throughout the United 

States. During a disaster or other emergency event, ECs report to the CMC on the status of 

the transportation infrastructure specific to their mode, and work with their mode to support 

restoration and recovery of the transportation infrastructure as necessary. ECs provide modal 

subject matter expertise to ESF-1 as requested. For example, the FHWA Modal EC interacts 

with State DOTs in requesting waivers of size and weight regulations facilitating movement 

of disaster relief goods, personnel, and services. 

• Regional Emergency Surge Staff – The DOT Regional Emergency Transportation 

Coordinators and Representatives (RETCO/RETREP) provide full time, collateral duty and 

volunteer DOT staff to augment the below entities, when established. Their role is to provide 

direct support to the ESF-1 mission. ESF-1 Staff, including support agencies, are provided to 

the following organizations: 

— Regional Response Coordination Center (RRCC): A regional component, the RRCC, 

may be established temporarily until the larger, more comprehensive Joint Field Office 

is established and functional. 

— Joint Field Office (JFO): Multiple Joint Field Offices may be established in support of 

an incident, for both regional-level and nationwide incidents. Note that, under certain 

circumstances, the Secretary will deploy a representative to one or more JFOs to serve 

as a Senior Federal Official in support of the Principal Federal Official under the 

National Response Plan. 

— State Emergency Operations Centers. 

— Local Emergency Operations Centers. 

— Local Incident Command. 

— Mobilization Centers 

— Logistics Staging Areas 

— Local Points of Distribution (normally staffed by state and local personnel) 

• Evacuation Liaison Team (ELT): The primary role of the ELT, led by U.S. DOT in Region 

IV with support from FEMA Region IV, is to provide Federal, State, and local emergency 

management, highway patrol and law enforcement, public safety, and transportation officials 

with timely and accurate traffic and evacuation-related information during multi-State 

hurricane threats. The ELT supports regional hurricane response efforts by compiling, 

analyzing, and disseminating traffic-related information that can be used to facilitate the 

rapid, efficient, and safe evacuation of threatened populations.96
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 H-8 

State and Local 

• Governor: The Governor of the impacted State is the chief executive of the State and is 

responsible for the safety and welfare of its people. The Governor coordinates the state’s 

assets and resources to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergency 

situations. The Governor is the Commander-in-Chief of State military forces (i.e., National 

Guard when in State Active Duty or Title 32, United States Code Status and the authorized 

state militias) and in certain emergency conditions, the Governor has police powers to make, 

amend, and rescind orders and regulations.97

• Local Chief Executive Officer (CEO): A mayor or city or county manager, as a local 

jurisdiction’s CEO, is responsible for the public safety and welfare of the people of that 

jurisdiction. The Local CEO is responsible for coordinating local resources to address the 

full spectrum of actions to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies. 

Depending upon State and local law, the Local CEO has extraordinary powers to suspend 

local laws and ordinances, and may establish a curfew, direct evacuations, and, in 

coordination with the local health authority, order quarantine. The Local CEO negotiates and 

enters into mutual-aid agreements with other jurisdictions to facilitate resource-sharing. 

When the local jurisdiction’s capabilities have been exceeded or exhausted, the Local CEO 

may request State and, if necessary, Federal assistance through the Governor.98 

• Tribal CEO: The leader of a tribe is responsible for the public safety and welfare of the 

people within that tribe. As authorized by tribal government, the Tribal CEO is responsible 

for coordinating tribal resources to address the full spectrum of actions to prevent, prepare 

for, respond to, and recover from incidents involving all hazards including terrorism, natural 

disasters, accidents, and other contingencies. The Tribal CEO has extraordinary powers to 

suspend tribal laws and ordinances, such as to establish a curfew, direct evacuations, and 

order quarantine. Furthermore, the Tribal CEO can request State and Federal assistance 

through the Governor of the State when the tribe’s capabilities have been exceeded or 

exhausted. Also, this individual can elect to deal directly with the Federal Government. 

(Although a State Governor must request a Presidential disaster declaration on behalf of a 

tribe under the Stafford Act, Federal agencies can work directly with the tribe within existing 

authorities and resources.)99 

• State Emergency Management Agency: A state emergency management agency is 

designated by the governor to plan, prepare for, and support the state’s response to a variety 

of emergencies and hazards. The agency creates emergency operations plans for the state to 

support emergency management functions and prepares state contingency plans designed to 

prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from all hazards. All state plans are to be 

coordinated and in sync with local, tribal, and regional emergency management activities.100 

• Law Enforcement Agencies (State): Each State has jurisdiction for enforcement of State 

law, using State and local resources, including the National Guard (to the extent that the 

National Guard remains under State authority and has not been called into Federal service or 

ordered to active duty). The local and State law enforcement agencies within an affected 

area, among other responsibilities, enforce law and order during a mass evacuation.101
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-1 

Appendix I: U.S. DOT Evacuation-Related Responsibilities 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

The FAA is responsible for operating the National Airspace System (NAS), including the 

provision of air navigation services such as air traffic control; regulatory oversight of traffic in 

the NAS and U.S. air operators; national planning, development, and regulation of airports; and 

the control and management of the country’s airspace. 

Reflecting its core responsibilities, authorities, and capabilities, the FAA plays a very active role 

in responding to national disasters, including support of air evacuations. These activities focus 

primarily on two aspects of the response effort. First, the agency provides substantial aviation 

expertise and operational support through the U.S. DOT ESF-1 function at the national, regional, 

and local levels as needed. This support includes airspace measures such as establishing and 

managing Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) over disaster areas, enabling evacuation and 

other relief aircraft to carry out their missions more safely, flexibly, and rapidly. The FAA also 

operationally coordinates with Federal partners such as DHS and DOD; State and local 

authorities; and private sector entities to support evacuation efforts. In addition, the agency can 

take needed regulatory steps such as revising air crew rest requirements for operators conducting 

critical relief missions as long as safety is maintained. 

Second, the FAA quickly restores air navigation services and associated NAS facilities and 

systems, which may be damaged or otherwise disrupted in the disaster area. This effort is 

coordinated with DHS, DOD, and other key stakeholders at the Federal, State, and local levels, 

as well with the private sector, to ensure that services needed for evacuation flights and other 

relief missions are given priority. 

The FAA has established a number of operational cells, which directly support evacuation and 

other operational disaster response efforts involving the NAS. Some of these specialized cells 

are activated at FAA facilities, including the Hurricane Recovery Desk at the agency’s Air 

Traffic Control System Command Center and the Hurricane Operations Cell at FAA 

Headquarters. Both cells coordinate air operations with the NRCC, DOD operational elements, 

and other entities and were stood up for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005. Other 

elements of the FAA’ response capabilities are integrated with ESF-1 elements established by 

FEMA at the national, regional, and local levels. 

FAA and Aviation Industry Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

The FAA worked closely with the DHS (including FEMA and TSA), DOD, and other Federal, 

State, and local partners, as well as private sector air operators to quickly restore air 

transportation to the Gulf Coast region needed to support the post-landfall evacuation of the New 

Orleans area. Under the extremely difficult conditions after Hurricane Katrina, the FAA was able 

to quickly restore critical air navigation services in the damaged areas, giving priority to airports 

(e.g., Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport) and services need to support 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-2 

evacuation flights and other critical relief missions. The agency, in coordination with its 

partners, also rapidly implemented airspace and other air traffic operations measures, including a 

set of TFRs over the disaster areas along the Gulf Coast, to facilitate relief air operations; a 

process for vetting relief aircraft run by the Hurricane Recovery Desk and Hurricane Operations 

Cell mentioned above; and air operation coordination links to the NRCC, DOD operational units, 

and other key players. In addition, the FAA temporarily eased regulatory restrictions on the 

maximum flight hours for crews involved in the air evacuations to assist carriers in their 

scheduling requirements. 

At Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, the tower was quickly restored and 

mobile generators, satellite communicatons, radios and temporary lighting were deployed and 

installed to support the the largest airlift on United States soil. To expedite the reopening of the 

airport, several volunteer controllers and technicians rode out the storm at the tower. Recovery 

efforts were coordinated with other FAA facilities and airports outside of the disaster area to 

provide technicians, infrastructure experts, and ground and fire fighting personnel to assess 

damage, assist with immediate repairs, and support operations. This rapid work was 

accomplished in cooperation with DHS, DOD, State, and local personnel. 

 In less than one week, almost full air traffic control and navigational aid capability was restored 

to the New Orleans airport. Within the first week, 400 civilian and military aircraft safely 

evacuated over 24,000 people, and delivered relief supplies. Louis Armstrong New Orleans 

International Airport became one of the nation’s busier airports as personnel handled 3,300 

flights per day, quadruple normal air traffic levels, with an arrival rate of 15 aircraft per hour and 

up to 150 helicopter operations. FAA personnel worked to staff air traffic control facilities, repair 

navigational aids and other critical infrastructure, and to provide safety oversight in support of 

ongoing evacuation and relief efforts.102

Before Hurricane Rita made landfall, FAA air traffic control facilities in Houston and BeaumontPort Arthur helped FEMA evacuation flights carry several thousand people to other cities in 

Texas and Arkansas. Early Friday morning, September 23, air traffic controllers from San 

Antonio relieved co-workers who had continued to work as the area was evacuated at the 

Beaumont-Port Arthur Air Traffic Control Tower to help the military evacuate citizens. The 

FAA’s controllers helped the military airlift 4,000 people out of danger, many of them sick and 

elderly. 

The aviation industry’s “Operation AIR CARE” provided emergency airlift support to more than 

24,000 New Orleans residents. The Air Transport Association (ATA), a trade group for the 

major airline carriers, worked with the ESF-1 program, FAA, and FEMA to provide evacuation 

and relief services. U.S. and foreign commercial carriers and military aircraft also provided 

substantial resources. 

Air carriers initiated volunteer activities and ATA helped to manage the airlifts. Participating 

passenger carriers included Alaska, America West, American, ATA, Continental, Delta, Jet Blue, 

Northwest, Southwest, United, US Airways, and Air Canada. Cargo carriers also provided 

support, including ASTAR Air Cargo, Federal Express and UPS Airlines. FEMA also asked 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-3 

Angel Flight America, which provides regularly flights in private planes for patients and 

families, to participate in the evacuation efforts, particularly for those with special needs. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Through its Federal-aid programs, FHWA provides financial and technical support to the States 

and local governments for constructing, improving, preserving, and operating the highway 

system. Highways are generally owned and operated by State and local jurisdictions that are 

responsible for planning and implementing highway evacuations. While FHWA does not have 

regulatory authority to direct movement on highways, in a catastrophic event where Federal 

agencies are working with State authorities, the FHWA may provide technical support to State 

officials for highway evacuation operations. 

Several FHWA funding programs include evacuation-related activities as eligible expenses, 

including National Highway System Program, Surface Transportation Program, Equity Bonus, 

Metropolitan Planning Funds, and State Planning and Research. Examples of the types of 

evacuation activities that State and local transportation agencies could pursue with FHWA 

funding include evacuation planning and coordination, contraflow planning, and deployment of 

traffic monitoring systems such as traffic counters and surveillance cameras along the evacuation 

routes, and traveler information systems. 

FHWA has a number of initiatives to support evacuation planning and implementation including 

sharing best practices, providing training and technical assistance, and conducting research and 

development to improve evacuation capabilities. Currently, as already discussed, the FHWA is 

developing a series of primers to assist State and local emergency response and transportation 

agencies in planning for evacuations. These primers will be widely distributed and will also 

serve as training material for a series of regional workshops.

FHWA Division Offices are located in each State, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. In New 

York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, FHWA maintains metropolitan offices. 

There is also an FHWA Resource Center with locations in Baltimore, Atlanta, Olympia Fields, 

Illinois, Lakewood Colorado, and San Francisco. Each of these offices has collateral duty 

personnel designated as Emergency Coordinators (EC) and Alternate Emergency Coordinators. 

The mission of these ECs is to coordinate organizational efforts to prepare for, respond to, and 

recover from any emergency or situation that may disrupt normal operations; support the 

RETCO/RETREP program and ESF-1 function as requested; and serve as the organization focal 

point for executing FHWA emergency notification and reporting procedures and for responding 

to requests for situational awareness information regarding the status and capabilities of the 

NHS, STRAHNET, and other arterials. In addition to these duties, the scope of FHWA field 

office activities vary depending on the needs of the State. For example, in Florida the FHWA 

EC coordinates with the Florida Department of Transportation to update statewide contraflow 

evacuation plans and implement the emergency transportation information system. In 

Mississippi the FHWA EC participates in hurricane planning activities. The Team Leader for 

the Evacuation Liaison Team described on page 2-19 is from the Atlanta Resource Center. Field 

offices also provide representatives as needed to fill a variety of positions in the ESF-1 function 

and within the federal response command and control framework.103 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-4 

As an adjunct to the Federal-Aid Highway Program, the FHWA administers the Federal Lands 

Highway Program in cooperation with Federal land managing agencies including the National 

Park Service, Forest Service, Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Federal lands-program provides funding 

for more than 90,000 miles of federally owned and public authority-owned roads serving Federal 

lands, including forest highway system roads, parkways and park roads, Indian reservation roads, 

defense access roads, and other Federal lands roads. The Federal Lands Highway Office of the 

FHWA provides direct program coordination, administration and design and construction 

engineering assistance, and directs the conduct of transportation planning and engineering 

studies for Federal lands projects. 

FHWA Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

 

FHWA staff at headquarters and from division, metropolitan, and resource center offices 

provided personnel support at ESF-1 and other offices throughout the response network. The 

FHWA EC in each effected state provided vital, timely highway infrastructure situational 

awareness information. FHWA provided members to the Secretary of Transportation 

Emergency Response Team (ERT) operations section based in the CMC. These individuals were 

responsible for obtaining information from the EC network and other sources and for developing 

the readiness and capability of the regional transportation infrastructure used to provide routing 

information to facilitate the post- landfall evacuation of New Orleans and the movement of relief 

supplies into the region. The ELT, described on page 2-19, facilitated pre-landfall evacuation 

and contraflow operations throughout the region and supported the post-landfall evacuation 

operations in New Orleans post-landfall, a mission not previously assigned to that team. Using 

its Emergency Relief Program funding authority, FHWA provided debris removal and 

emergency repair funding. FHWA subject matter experts from headquarters and Division 

Offices provided technical assistance and subject matter expertise to State DOTs to facilitate the 

speedy design of temporary repairs. 

ITS Joint Program Office (JPO) 

The ITS JPO supports the development of advanced technologies to improve the safety and 

efficiency of transportation systems. A major initiative addressing emergency transportation 

operations is now being revised to better focus on the development and application of ITS 

technologies to improve evacuation planning, monitoring, and implementation. It is expected 

that the revised initiative will improve the information available to travelers as well as decisionmakers engaged in evacuations. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

In SAFETEA-LU, Congress increased FTA’s role in evacuations. Previously, FTA did not have 

authority to regulate the operation, routes, schedules, rates, fares, tolls, rentals, or other charges 

of FTA grantees. The new authorizing legislation created an exception to give FTA authority to 

regulate transit operations when needed for national defense or in the event of a national or 

regional emergency.104 SAFETEA-LU also expanded the definition of capital expenditures 

eligible for FTA funding to include, among other things, security projects such as emergency 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-5 

response planning, exercises, and training. SAFETEA-LU also called for a Public 

Transportation National Security Study by the TRB under an agreement with the U.S. DOT. The 

study is to evaluate the ability of 38 major transit systems to accommodate evacuations from 

critical locations in times of emergency.105 The study is planned to begin in the summer of 2006. 

Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FTA instituted a number of initiatives to help improve 

the use of transit in evacuations. In September 2005, FTA posted “Hurricane Katrina 

Information for FTA Grantees” on its internal Web site available to its grantees. This 

information package provided guidance on FTA funding and regulations affecting hurricane 

response and recovery. While most of the guidance related to recovery from the hurricane and 

restoring service, it also provided a basis for transit agencies to plan their roles in future 

evacuations. For example, the guidance allows FTA grantees to loan transit vehicles to other 

transit agencies without obtaining an FTA determination ahead of time. In response to hurricane 

Katrina, FTA also waived the charter bus rule to allow transit agencies to provide buses for 

evacuation assistance. Under normal operations, FTA’s charter bus rule, found in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (49CFR604), prohibits transit agencies from providing bus service that 

could be provided by a private charter bus operator. 

On November 30, 2005, FTA issued a Federal Register Notice to provide funding levels and 

guidance from SAFETEA-LU for its 2006 program. This notice includes emergency 

management as one of its five primary emphasis areas for 2006 and allows States and 

metropolitan planning organizations to use FTA planning funds to support evacuation planning. 

The Federal Register Notice states: 

A high-profile theme that spans both security and safety is disaster planning. In 

particular, areas that are vulnerable to disasters of either man-made or natural 

origin are encouraged to consider including disaster planning work activities into 

their [required plans]. Examples of planning-related disaster planning activities 

include all stages of emergency preparedness planning—ranging from preparing 

multimodal evacuation plans before a possible event, to strategies for bringing 

emergency supplies and relief aid to affected areas after the event.106

FTA included a specific goal in its 2006 Strategic Business Plan to develop an FTA Disaster 

Response and Recovery Plan to improve its role and effectiveness in emergency response, 

including evacuations. The goal states: 

Based on lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and other events, develop a 

Disaster Response and Recovery Plan that will include standard operating 

procedures, staffing and resource plan, updated administrative and procurement 

procedures including emergency contracts for consultants’ with pre-existing 

scopes of work, guidance for transit agencies for working with State and local 

disaster preparedness efforts and understanding FEMA policies and procedures 

for emergency public transportation assistance and funding, and a legislative 

strategy for FTA emergency authority and funding.” 

The plan is under development and is scheduled to be completed in September 2006. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-6 

FTA’s United We Ride program is working to improve the coordination and operations of 

paratransit service among human services and transportation agencies. This will improve 

transportation services for people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with low 

incomes who do not have access to a personal vehicle, may not be able to access fixed route 

services, and also may require additional transportation support. Following Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita, the FTA began new initiatives under this program to help identify and organize 

paratransit resources to help in mass evacuations. 

FTA’s “The Public Transportation System Security and Emergency Preparedness Planning 

Guide,”107 provides information for transit agencies on comprehensive security and emergency 

preparedness planning, including evacuations. Transit agencies develop safety and security 

plans, and the FTA reviews their plans during periodic oversight reviews. In the 2006 guidance 

for these oversight reviews, FTA added two questions to increase its focus on evacuations: “Has 

the grantee reviewed and updated as needed its emergency management plan in light of 

Hurricane Katrina?” and “Are there procedures in the emergency management plan that detail 

how the transit agency would assist in a large-scale evacuation effort?”108 

These new programs are in addition to existing emergency preparedness initiatives that include 

components to help support the effective participation of transit agencies in mass evacuation 

planning and implementation. For example, FTA conducts two-day forums in major 

metropolitan areas called “Connecting Communities” to promote coordination among transit 

agencies and emergency management agencies throughout metropolitan areas. One of the goals 

of the forums is to integrate transit and transportation systems as a resource in regional 

emergencies such as evacuations. FTA also offers a training course to transit agencies and 

emergency responders, “Effectively Managing Transit Emergencies.” This course provides 

training on establishing an emergency management plan and ICS, which are important tools in 

evacuation planning and implementation. 

FTA and Transit Industry Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

During the evacuations and response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FTA staff was deployed to 

the CMC to provide support for ESF-1 functions. FTA also worked in partnership with APTA to 

identify buses, mechanics, and drivers from transit agencies across the country that volunteered 

to help with the evacuation. FTA coordinated the deployment of these resources with the ESF-1 

program. APTA worked with FTA to determine how support from the transit industry could be 

provided and served as an industry liaison to the federal government. Since Hurricane Katrina, 

APTA has formed the APTA Emergency Preparedness Task Force to develop strategies to 

improve the working relationship and coordination with the governments at all levels in 

emergency response. 

The transit agencies sending equipment to assist with the evacuation after Hurricane Katrina 

included: 

• The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) provided 100 buses and 200 

volunteer bus operators as well as maintenance staff. The MTA also transported 150 

volunteer officers from the New York Police Department to the Gulf Coast region. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-7 

• New Jersey Transit Corporation sent four buses to transport New Jersey and local police 

officers to the affected region. 

• The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority procured 10 charter buses to drive to 

New Orleans, pick up evacuees, and bring them back to Washington, DC. 

• The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sent three 2-person teams to the affected 

area. 

• MV Transportation Inc. sent 52 buses and lift vans, along with drivers and mechanics, to 

assist in the specialized evacuation of the elderly, persons with disabilities, and hospital 

patients from New Orleans. The vehicles came from as far away as San Francisco, Chicago, 

and Orlando. 

In Texas, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, Dallas Area Rapid Transit in Dallas, and 

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Austin, transported hundreds of hurricane 

survivors who arrived at airport, rail stations, and motor coach terminals to shelters and to 

hospitals for medical treatment. Transit systems in Little Rock, Arkansas; Cleveland, Ohio; 

Charlotte, North Carolina; Washington, DC; Providence, Rhode Island; Salt Lake City, Utah; 

Tucson, Arizona; and Atlanta, Georgia, also met hundreds of evacuees at their airports and 

transported them to shelters. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

FRA monitors the safety of railroads in the U.S. and issues and enforces rail safety regulations. 

FRA also promotes rail safety and efficiency through railroad assistance programs, research and 

development, rehabilitation of Northeast Corridor rail passenger service, and consolidation of 

government support of rail transportation activities. Under its legislative authority, FRA may 

stop, redirect, or limit rail service, including freight and passenger service and some commuter 

rail service, to abate unsafe conditions. This authority applies to all railroad service that is 

connected to the general freight and passenger rail system. This authority does not extend to rail 

rapid transit systems not part of the general railroad system. 109 

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is an independent agency created after the Interstate 

Commerce Commission (ICC) was abolished. The STB serves as both an adjudicatory and a 

regulatory body and has jurisdiction over railroad rates and service issues and railroad mergers 

and restructuring. The STB can direct, for a period of 270 days, the movement and prioritization 

of freight traffic necessary to alleviate an emergency situation involving the failure of traffic 

movement having substantial adverse impacts on shippers or on rail service in any region of the 

United States, and may also order that preference be given to certain traffic.110

The FRA headquarters and field staff also staff the CMC and FEMA regional emergency 

operations centers when it is activated for a disaster or elevated threat level. The FRA staff serve 

as subject matter experts and liaisons between the industry and the government. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-8 

FRA and Railroad Industry Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

FRA staffed the CMC and FEMA regional emergency operations centers and worked with 

Amtrak, commuter trains, and freight railroads. During the critical early days after Hurricane 

Katrina, FRA held daily conference calls with railroad officials and FEMA and DHS to share 

information and coordinate relief and recovery efforts.111 Railroads worked closely through the 

ESF-1 program and FEMA to assign priorities to the shipments most needed in the stricken 

areas. An Amtrak train evacuated 96 residents from New Orleans. Trains transported heavy 

equipment, supplies, and relief equipment such as FEMA supplies, trailers, and other equipment 

into the area.112 Difficulty was encountered in staging evacuees to use the passenger rail services 

that were offered by Amtrak because of communication and coordination problems among local, 

State, and Federal officials. 

The railroad industry, including passenger rail, commuter trains, and freight railroads, were 

deployed to support emergency response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Trains were used to 

move some evacuees out of the region and to transport heavy equipment, supplies, and relief 

equipment into the area. 

Trainloads of ballast, ties, and emergency equipment were staged outside of the immediate storm 

area. Some railroads moved camp cars into place to support maintenance forces that would have 

to be fed and housed. With advance preparation, the railroads were able to reopen most of their 

lines within days of the storm, with the exception of those in the immediate New Orleans area. 

In the initial preparations for the landfall of Hurricane Katrina, Amtrak offered help but was 

turned down—so a train with 900 seats (7 locomotives and 20 cars) rolled away empty a day and 

a half before the storm. After the hurricane, Amtrak provided a special train that operated over 

freight tracks to evacuate 96 people from New Orleans to Lafayette, Louisiana. These trains also 

brought in essential supplies of food and water. "We have clear tracks and an empty train ready 

to help get residents safely out of the city," said Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.113 

The special 12-car Amtrak passenger train moved evacuees to Lafayette, where passengers were 

transferred to motor coaches to complete the journey to Dallas and other destinations. 

Railroads were also used to support evacuation for Hurricane Rita. Amtrak, Burlington Northern 

Santa Fe (BNSF) railway, and Trinity Railway Express coordinated equipment, rail lines, and 

crew to create a special passenger train to evacuate 450 people from the Houston area to Dallas. 

The railroad industry worked with State and local emergency responders, the National Guard, 

and volunteer groups on the evacuation. The Salvation Army, other volunteers, and the National 

Guard helped provide food, water, and other necessities to the evacuees. The baby food, diapers, 

and other paper products were especially welcome to the many families traveling with children. 

When the train arrived at Dallas Union Station, some evacuees were met by representatives of 

the Salvation Army and other agencies who directed them to shelters; others were met by family 

members. Those with special medical needs were taken to local health care facilities.114 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-9 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

FMCSA oversees the safety of motor carrier operations in interstate commerce. FMCSA 

regulates operating and maintenance practices, national standards for licensing commercial 

vehicle drivers, the transportation of hazardous materials, and hours of service, and makes grants 

to State and local motor carrier enforcement agencies. The FMCSA regulations that affect the 

ability of motor carriers to engage in interstate travel to meet evacuation and other disasterrelated needs include limits on the hours that a driver may be on duty, motor carrier registration 

and operating authority, and hazardous materials safety requirements. In addition to the Federal 

regulations for interstate carriers, States also regulate commercial vehicle operations including 

registration, fuel tax reporting, and size and weight limits. 

The FMCSA supports ESF-1 functions through waivers of regulations and other actions to 

expedite transportation of passengers and supplies in an emergency. For instance, FMCSA’s 

regulations provide for regulatory relief from the hours-of-service provisions (49 CFR 390-399) 

upon the declaration of regional or local emergency by the President, the governor of a State, the 

representatives, or the FMCSA Field Administrator.115 

The FMCSA headquarters and field staff also help staff the CMC when it is activated for a 

disaster or elevated threat level. The FMCSA staff serve as subject matter experts and liaisons 

between the industry and the government. FMCSA subject matter experts provide technical 

assistance to industry associations and individual companies on how to secure interstate 

operating authority and how to meet the safety regulations so that they can participate in 

emergency response contracts, as well as how they can volunteer equipment and services. In a 

national disaster, truck and bus operators may be eager to offer their services for contract or as 

volunteers. However, the deployment of large volunteer operators needs to be coordinated so that 

their services are effectively used and to ensure that they will have specific tasks, fuel, 

maintenance, lodging, and security once they are on site. Spontaneous volunteers can turn into 

part of the problem if they become stranded in the disaster area. 

FMCSA and Motor Coach Industry Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FMCSA functioned as a clearinghouse of information for 

truck and bus companies on obtaining the authorizations operators needed to operate legally 

outside of normal regulatory constraints under emergency conditions. In addition, FMCSA 

instructed drivers and operators on the necessary steps to ensure that they were in compliance 

with the rules and regulations of the states that they might need to traverse (some states 

suspended no motor carrier regulations and others suspended differing sets of rules for varying 

lengths of time). 

FMCSA established a single point of contact (POC) for the industry. The POC was backed up 

by a technical advisory team that was available around the clock to make complex regulatory 

interpretations. FMCSA estimates that it responded to an estimated 300 to 400 carrier calls. 

FMCSA established a Katrina web page providing up-to-date information on emergency 

declarations and answers to frequently asked questions regarding regulatory exemptions during 

the emergency. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-10

To facilitate the transportation of supplies and services to the disaster areas, emergency 

declarations were issued by the President and by FMCSA. These declarations have triggered the 

temporary suspension of parts 390-399 of the federal safety regulations, including hours-ofservice requirements for motor carrier drivers. Additional waivers were granted to motor carriers 

and drivers engaged in specific aspects of the emergency relief effort as follows: 

FMCSA Regional Emergency Declaration for carriers and Drivers 

Transporting Certain Fuels. FMCSA issued Regional Emergency Declarations 

lasting until October 5, 2005 for the transportation of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, 

natural gas /CNG, propane and ethanol to, from and within the States located 

within its Eastern and Southern regions. 

Presidential Declaration of Emergency Relief for the States of Alabama, 

Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Motor carriers and 

drivers providing direct emergency relief to, from, or within the areas covered by 

the Presidential declarations, regardless of commodity carried. 

Presidential Declaration of Emergency Relief in Support of Evacuees for the 

States of Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, 

Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. Motor carriers and drivers providing items 

needed to house, clothe, and feed evacuees to, from, or within the areas covered 

by the Presidential declarations. 

An additional measure taken by FMCSA was to allow intrastate carriers to receive 120 day 

temporary interstate operating authority. FMCSA waived the associated $300 fee. FMCSA 

estimates that 30 percent of the carriers fulfilling Federal contracts for emergency relief 

operations were intrastate carriers operating under temporary authority. 

The motor coach industry responded to the ESF-1 call to mobilize buses to evacuate people from 

New Orleans. Over 1,100 buses and drivers were hired and evacuated approximately 218,000 

people. 

In addition, school buses were also used in the evacuation. One report notes that school bus 

drivers and vehicles from Zachary and West Baton Rouge Parish in Louisiana arrived in New 

Orleans on August 30 when first asked by the Louisiana Corrections Department to move 

corrections officers to New Orleans and prisoners out of Orleans Parish. These drivers also 

helped evacuate the Superdome, rescue stranded residents from other staging areas, transport the 

National Guard, and move supplies. 

For Hurricane Rita, the bus industry assisted in the evacuation before landfall of the hurricane. 

Texas officials called the American Bus Association (ABA) for assistance in locating suppliers 

of bus services. Using information compiled during Hurricane Katrina, the ABA notified 

operators in 14 States of the requirement enabling State and local officials in Texas to acquire the 

needed buses for the planned evacuation. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-11

U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) 

Among the wide variety of MARAD’s programs, those most germane to hurricane response 

include programs to ensure reserve shipping capacity for use in times of national emergency and 

promote the development and maintenance of the domestic ship building and repair industries, 

efficient ports, and intermodal systems.116 DOT does not have authority to regulate the operation 

of maritime transportation; that authority resides with the U.S. Coast Guard, an agency of DHS. 

MARAD maintains the Ready Reserve Force (RRF), currently consisting of 58 vessels that are 

ready to be activated at short notice in a national emergency. All the vessels in a higher state of 

readiness have home ports along the coastal areas of the United States, with the exception of 

three vessels in Japan, and may be used for hurricane relief. MARAD also has approximately 

10-20 ships in the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) which have utility for disaster 

assistance as “berthing ships,” tankers (water or oil) and cargo carriers. The RRF and NDRF 

vessels are usually activated to support the Department of Defense in deploying and resupplying 

U.S. armed forces. In response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Secretary of Transportation, 

with concurrence from the Secretary of Defense, activated ships for the first time for disaster 

relief purposes. MARAD also owns six merchant mariner training ships that are on loan to six 

State Maritime Academies that may also be useful for disaster assistance. One of the ships is 

stationed in Texas. 

MARAD headquarters and field staff also provide support to the CMC when it is activated for a 

disaster or elevated threat level. The MARAD staff serves as subject matter experts and liaisons 

between the maritime industry and the government. 

MARAD and Maritime Industry Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

Ten MARAD ships in its RRF were activated to aid in the response and recovery to Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita. Through the ESF-1 program, the U.S. DOT and MARAD coordinated with 

FEMA on the availability and capacity of the ships. FEMA provided mission assignments, 

funding, and directions to the ships while MARAD retained operational control of the RRF 

vessels. The activation of these ships for a domestic emergency was unprecedented and 

provided the Gulf Coast with supplies, water, electricity, and food and shelter for rescue and 

recovery workers. MARAD ships provided 269,570 meals and 83,165 berth nights for recovery 

workers and evacuees. 

In preparation for Hurricane Rita, MARAD ships were stationed as shelters for equipment and 

emergency responders prior to the hurricane to support post-storm evacuations and recovery 

activities. The ships sheltered police dogs, emergency equipment, and personnel from six 

jurisdictions. The ships allowed emergency personnel and equipment to be sheltered during the 

storm so that they could be rapidly deployed for post-event evacuations and emergency response. 

Approximately 16 U.S. Navy merchant marine reservists were called upon by MARAD and 

responded in the field and at standing watches at DOT Headquarters. Most of these reservists 

were graduates of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and the six State Maritime Academies, 

and had a wide range of experience from their civilian maritime-related careers. During the 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 I-12

Katrina/Rita relief efforts, those in the field augmented MARAD staff providing assistance. The 

fact that they were in uniform was a key to expediting recovery efforts since Federal and State 

authorities and the public at large recognized the uniforms. 

Maritime resources were used more in the rescue phase of the emergency response to Hurricane 

Katrina than in the evacuation. However, three ferries from the Crescent City Connection Ferry 

and a tug and barge worked with the U.S. Coast Guard vessels to transfer a large number of 

evacuees from Chalmette over to the west bank (Algiers). Private-boat owners also helped to 

support the evacuation of flooded areas after Hurricane Katrina. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 Endnotes-1 

Endnotes 

 

1

 National Response Plan (NRP), pg. 63. 

2

 “Our cities must have clear and up-to-date plans for responding to natural disasters, and disease outbreaks, or a 

terrorist attack, for evacuating large numbers of people in an emergency, and for providing the food and water and 

security they would need. In a time of terror threats and weapons of mass destruction, the danger to our citizens 

reaches much wider than a fault line or a flood plain. I consider detailed emergency planning to be a national 

security priority, and therefore, I've ordered the Department of Homeland Security to undertake an immediate 

review, in cooperation with local counterparts, of emergency plans in every major city in America.” President 

George W. Bush, (New Orleans, Louisiana, September 15, 2005). 

3

 Recommendation 43 of the White House report (“The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned”) 

sets forth that the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Department of Transportation, should 

“evaluate all State evacuation plans as well as the evacuation plans of the 75 largest urban areas.” (Washington, 

D.C., February, 2006). 

4

 The DHS study is known as the Nationwide Plan Review. In February 2006, DHS issued its Phase 1 report, which 

is intended to meet the Congressional requirement to provide the status of catastrophic planning in all States and 75 

of the Nation’s largest urban areas, and the President’s direction to review emergency operations plans for the 

Nation’s major cities. Each State and urban area certified the status of its Emergency Operations Plans and identified 

when plans were last updated and exercised. The Phase 1 results presented in this report are the initial findings based 

on the self-assessments received from the States, territories, and urban areas. DHS is conducting a second phase of 

the Nationwide Plan Review to validate submissions and determine requirements for on-site planning assistance. 

DHS has enlisted teams of former State and local homeland security and emergency management officials to visit 

each State and territory, and the 75 urban areas and perform a peer review of their plans. The results of these visits 

and specific recommendations to strengthen catastrophic planning will be provided in a report to the President and 

Congress before June 1, 2006. 

5

 Sec. 10204, “Catastrophic hurricane evacuation plans,” Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),” Public Law 109-59, 109th Congress, August 10, 2005. 

6

 “The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrian: Lessons Learned,” p. 5. 

7

 “2005 Season Recap: NOAA Overview,” National Ocean & Atmospheric Administration, website, 

http://www.noaa.gov/. Direct link to article is http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2540.htm. 8

 “Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned,” pg. 18. 9

 FEMA SLG 101: Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning, Glossary of Terms, September 1996, pg. 

GLO-5. 

10 FEMA SLG 101: Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning, Glossary of Terms, September 1996, pg. 

GLO-6. 

11 FEMA SLG 101:Guide for All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning, Glossary of Terms, September 1996, pg. 

GLO-6. 

12 “Are You Ready: Basic Preparedness Guide,” FEMA website, 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/basic_preparedness.pdf. 13 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended by Public Law 106-390, October 

30, 2000, http://www.fema.gov/library/stafact.shtm#3. 14 “Planning Scenarios: Executive Summary,” Introduction, The Homeland Security Council, July 2004 pg. i. 15 “The National Preparedness Goal: HSPD-8 Implementation Newsletter,” DHS Office of State and Local and 

Government Coordination and Preparedness, Issue 01: July 25, 2005. 

16 “Preparedness Directorate Information Bulletin No. 197: National Plan Review, Preparedness Directorate,” 

Office of Grants and Training, Department of Homeland Security, November 23, 2005, pg. 2. 

17 FEMA SLG 101:Guide For All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning, Forward, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, September 1996. 

18 FEMA SLG 101: Guide For All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning, Forward, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, September 1996. 

19 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) web site, 

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=143&URL=About%20Us . 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 Endnotes-2 

 20 NUREG-O654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency 

Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants”, Foreword, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission and Federal Emergency Management Agency, November 1980. pg. i. 

21 FY2006 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) Program Guidance and Application Kit, December 2005, 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy2006hsgp.pdf . 22 FY2005 Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) Program Guidance and Application Kit, 

November 2005, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy2006empg.pdf. 23Office of Grants and Training, Competitive Training Grants website, 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/training_ctgp.htm . 24 Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance Program website, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ta.htm 

and http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/about/default.htm 25 National Response Plan (NRP), pg. 60. 

26 Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Overview and Exercise Program Management, 

Volume 1, Revised March 2006, pg. 4. 

27 National Incident Management System (NIMS), website, www.NIMSONLINE.org. 28 National Response Plan (NRP), pg.3. 

29National Response Plan (NRP), pg.3. 

30 American Red Cross History, http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/charter.asp. 31 National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD), http://www.nvoad.org/ 32 Citizen Corps Annual Report 2004, http://www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/news/CC_AR2004_SFS.pdf . 33 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (HSPD-5), Washington, DC, February 2003. 34 National Response Plan (NRP), pgs ESF#1-3 

35 National Response Plan (NRP), pgs ESF #1-4 - ESF #1-5 

36 FHWA 2006 performance plan (FHWA-HRT-06-037), http://www.tfhrc.gov/about/perfplan0607/index.htm. 37 Section 5334 of 49 U.S.C 

38 SAFETEA-LU, Section 3046(a)(1). 

39 Federal Register, Volume 70. No 229, November 30, 2005 p. 71971. 40 REMOVED 

41 FTA – The Public Transportation System Security and Emergency Preparedness Planning Guide, January 2003. 

42 49 U.S.C. § 20104 

43 49 U.S.C. § 11123 and 49 U.S.C. § 11124 

44 Freight Railroads Meet the Challenge of Hurricane Katrina,,http://www.aar.org/Newsroom/katrina05.asp. 45 Back on Track - The Rail Industry’s Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, A Weekly Update, Association of 

American Railroads, Issue 5 October 7, 2005. 

46 “Department of Transportation Arranges for Amtrak to Begin Evacuating Residents from New Orleans Starting 

Tonight,” U.S. Department of Transportation website –DOT 119-05, September 5, 2005, 

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot11905.htm, 47 Hurricane Rita Evacuees Ride on BNSF Railway, September 23, 2005, 

http://www.bnsf.com/employees/communications/bnsf_today/2005/09/2005-09-23-f.html. 48 49 CFR 390.23, Relief from regulations. 

49 MARAD Mission, Goals and Vision, website, http://www.marad.dot.gov/welcome/mission.html . 50 Presentation: “Evacuation from Hurricane Katrina: Jefferson and St. Charles Parishes,” Lindell, Michael K., and 

Carla S. Prater, Texas A&M University, Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center. 51National Response Plan (NRP), pg. ESF#6-3. 

52 “VA Preparing for Hurricane Rita,” States News Service, September 22, 2005. 53 GAO-06-443R Evacuation of Hospitals and Nursing Homes, February 16, 2006. 

54 Emergency Preparedness Communications Campaign, Louisiana Presentation. 

55 “Latinos Hope Next Warning Comes in Spanish,” The Sun Herald, March 9, 2006. 

56 Louisiana State Visit Notes. 

57 Texas State Visit Notes. 

58 Mississippi State Visit Report. 

59 “State Seeks To Supplant Red Cross,” The New York Times, April 18, 2006. 60 Texas State Visit Notes. 

61 Louisiana State Visit Notes. 

62 The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, pg. 125. 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 Endnotes-3 

 63 “Citizen Corps Support for Hurricane Katrina Response & Recovery Efforts” Citizen Corps website, 

http://www.citizencorps.gov/doc/cc_Support_Katrina_1005.doc . 64 Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program: (HSEEP) Overview and Exercise Program Management, 

Volume 1, Revised March 2006, pg. 6. 

65 FEMA SLG 101:Guide For All-Hazard Emergency Operations Planning, Forward, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, pgs.1-5. 

66 Mississippi Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan, Volume III, Mississippi Comprehensive Emergency 

Management Plan, Revised March 2005. 

67 A Failure of Initiative, Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and 

Response to Hurricane Katrina, U.S. House of Representatives, 109th Congress, February 15, 2006, pg.152. 68 “Reviews Fault U.S. Disaster Response Plans; Relief Plans Lack Needed Detail, Military Officials Say,“ The 

Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 2005 

69 Report Number: GAO-06-365R - Statement by Comptroller General David M. Walker on GAO’s Preliminary 

Observations Regarding Preparedness and Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, February 1, 2006, , pgs. 2-8. 

70 Orange County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan , Orange County [Florida] Fire Rescue Department 

Office of Emergency Management and Emergency Support Function Planning Group, Updated May 1, 2003, pg. B8. 

71 “Oak Ridge Evacuation Modeling System.” Oak Ridge National Laboratories. 

http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/One_Pagers/OREMS.pdf. 72 Franzese, Oscar and John Sorenson. “Fast Deployable System for Consequence Management: The Emergency 

Evacuation Component.” Oak Ridge National Laboratories. 

http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/120065.pdf. 73 Radwan, Essam and Mansooreh Mollaghasemi, Steven Mitchell, and Gonca Yildirim. “Framework For Modeling 

Emergency Evacuation.” Center for Advanced Transportation Systems Simulation. University of Central Florida. 

Orlando, Florida. April 2005. http://www.catss.ucf.edu/projects/documents/reports/htm/projectFR_58.htm. 74 “Governor Bush and Lt. Governor Jennings Announce New Funding Recommendations For Hurricane 

Preparedness, Response, And Recovery.” Press Release. January 6, 2006. From the State of Florida Governor’s 

Website (http://www.flgov.com/release/6920). 75 National Response Plan, Roles and Responsibilities, Page 9 

76 Ibid. P. 69. 77 National Response Plan, Concept of Operations, Page 22 

78 Ibid. P. 69. 79 National Response Plan, Appendix 1 – Glossary of Key Terms, Page 71 

80 National Response Plan, Concept of Operations, Page 35 

81 National Response Plan, Appendix 1 – Glossary of Key Terms, Page 65 

82 National Response Plan, Concept of Operations, Page 35 

83 National Response Plan, Concept of Operations, Page 29 

84 Ibid. P. 17. 85 National Response Plan, Concept of Operations, Page 24 

86 National Response Plan, Concept of Operations, Page 25 

87 National Response Plan, Concept of Operations, Page 27 

88 National Response Plan, Concept of Operations, Page 28 

89 National Response Plan, Appendix 1 – Glossary of Key Terms, Page 64 

90 National Response Plan, Appendix 1 – Glossary of Key Terms, Page 73 

91 Ibid. P. 66. 

92 National Response Plan, Concept of Operations, Page 42 

93 National Response Plan, Roles and Responsibilities, Page 11 

94 National Response Plan, ESF Annexes – Introduction, Page ESF iii 

95 National Response Plan, ESF Annexes – Introduction, Page ESF #1-1 

96 U.S. DOT/FEMA, Evacuation Liaison Team Standard Operating Procedures, Page 4 

97 National Response Plan, Roles and Responsibilities, Page 8 

98 National Response Plan, Roles and Responsibilities, Page 8 

99 National Response Plan, Roles and Responsibilities, Page 8 

100 National Response Plan, Ongoing Plan Management and Maintenance, Page 62 101 National Response Plan, Concept of Operations, Page 43 
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation 

June 1, 2006 Endnotes-4 

 102 FAA Fact sheet, 15 September 2005, http://www.faa.gov/news/disaster_response/katrina/summary/ 103 FHWA 2006 performance plan 104 Section 5334 of 49 U.S.C 105 SAFETEA-LU, Section 3046(a)(1) 106 Federal Register, Vol.70. No 229, November 30, 2005 p. 71971 107 “The Public Transportation System Security and Emergency Preparedness Planning Guide,” Federal Transit 

Administration, U.S. DOT, January, 2003. 

108 Safety and Security Oversight, 

109 49 U.S.C. § 20104 110 49 U.S.C. § 11123 and 49 U.S.C. § 11124 111“Freight Railroads Meet the Challenge of Hurricane Katrina,” http://www.aar.org/Newsroom/katrina05.asp 112“Back on Track,” Issue 5 October 7, 2005, The Rail Industry’s Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, A 

weekly update by the Association of American Railroads. 113U.S. Department of Transportation, "Department of Transportation Arranges for Amtrak to Begin Evacuating 

Residents from New Orleans Starting Tonight," DOT 119-05, September 5, 

2005. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot11905.htm. 114 (http://www.bnsf.com/employees/communications/bnsf_today/2005/09/2005-09-23-f.html) 115 49 CFR 390.23, Relief from regulations. 116 MARAD Mission, http://www.marad.dot.gov/welcome/mission.html