Cocoa Beach vulnerability assessment flags Fire Station 50, Cedar Woodland and park sites for adaptation

GeoSyntec project manager Scott Ditschey and Kelsey Mack of Applied Ecology presented the third public update on Cocoa Beach's vulnerability assessment, summarizing exposure and sensitivity analyses and outlining how the city will prioritize adaptation projects for Resilient Florida funding.

Ditschey said the assessment follows requirements in Florida statute and focuses on coastal risks including sea-level rise, storm surge and rainfall-induced flooding. "These are the items that would fall under that descriptor," he said, describing four classes of critical assets examined: evacuation routes, critical infrastructure (wastewater and drinking-water facilities), emergency/community facilities such as fire stations, and natural, cultural and historical resources including parks.

Mack described the team's prioritization approach to narrow roughly 10,000 assets into focus areas. She said the consultants adapted a scoring equation used by the City of Tampa that combines a timeframe factor, storm-frequency factor and sea-level-rise factor multiplied by modeled flood depth to produce a flood exposure score; the team runs about 20 scenarios per asset (coastal tidal, storm surge and rainfall scenarios across current and future planning years) and then applies multipliers for sensitivity, consequence and a local-priority flag.

"This could apply to any asset," Mack said, walking through a sample storm-surge calculation to illustrate how the numeric inputs produce an exposure score. She explained that sensitivity (low/medium/high), consequence (scored 1'4 in the presentation) and whether the city has designated the location a local priority change the final ranking.

Mack applied that method to Fire Station 50, located north of the causeway, reporting an exposure subtotal from the scenario runs and noting the station received a high sensitivity multiplier because a compromised fire station would limit emergency response across a wide region; she also said the city already lists improvements for the station in its capital-improvement program. In the presentation the fire-station exposure subtotal was given as 155; presenters cautioned that the final consolidated risk-prioritization number shown in one slide is garbled in the published transcript and will be clarified in the written report.

The consultants showed adaptation options used elsewhere: hardening buildings, protecting structures with retaining features, elevating occupied floors (the presenters cited City Hall as an example) and, in some cases, relocating assets. Mack illustrated how relocating a park one block to Mobley Park lowers its modeled exposure score (the park example had an exposure subtotal presented as roughly 85 and a lower score after relocation in the slides).

Mack also pointed to a known problem area, identified on the team's maps as Cedar Woodland in Brevard, saying the modeling confirms the area is currently flood-prone and that the city has included the area in its stormwater master plan.

Ditschey reviewed recent state-funded projects under the Resilient Florida program and said awards this fiscal cycle ranged from roughly $248,000 to about $28 million for projects including stormwater upgrades, shoreline and bulkhead work, and wastewater pump-station relocation. He emphasized that projects must be included in the vulnerability-assessment plan to be eligible for Resilient Florida funding.

On next steps Ditschey said the team is finalizing focus areas and adaptation-project recommendations and expects to deliver a final report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection by the end of next month; after DEP review and acceptance the city can pursue grant applications for projects identified in the plan.

During Q&A a participant asked whether the Tampa-style equation was required by statute; Mack responded that the equation was an adapted methodology accepted by DEP for Tampa but is not a FEMA- or DEP-mandated formula. The presenters also clarified units (flood depths reported in feet) and discussed why hospitals and emergency medical facilities receive higher priority than smaller health-care offices, noting hospitals are specifically called out in the statute.

The consultants said ambiguous or garbled numbers in the oral presentation will be clarified in the written final report to ensure precise scores and funding-ready descriptions.

The meeting closed with Ditschey thanking attendees and inviting further comments and questions.