Natural Disaster Survey Report

Hurricane Andrew:

South Florida and Louisiana

August 23-26, 1992

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
Cover: Left photograph&Houston’s WSR-88D, 0107 UTC, August 26, 1992; Right

photograph&

Melbourne’s WSR-88D, 0106 UTC, August 24, 1992.
Natural Disaster Survey Report

Hurricane Andrew:

South Florida and Louisiana

August 23-26, 1992

November 1993

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

D. James Baker, Administrator

National Weather Service

Dr. Elbert W. Friday, Jr., Assistant Administrator
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The outstanding efforts of our National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

employees ensured the safety of millions of citizens in the path of this country’s most destructive

storm. The National Weather Service (NWS) staff throughout south Florida, and later in

Louisiana, worked long hours under physically and emotionally stressful conditions. I am deeply

moved by the dedication of those most affected, specifically those in and around south Dade

County. Many of our people lost all or part of their homes and their personal belongings, and

some were displaced for months after the storm. Yet they, as well as other Federal, state, and

local employees, remained at their post in the worst of conditions, putting the public welfare

ahead of their own safety. 

Once again, I congratulate those who made NOAA’s response to this powerful storm a success

story. You are an inspiration to us all.

Dr. Elbert W. Friday, Jr.

November 1993
iii

PREFACE

The primary purpose of this disaster survey has been to evaluate the performance of the NWS

in fulfilling its mission of providing timely warnings and accurate forecasts for Hurricane

Andrew. The responsibilities of NOAA, the parent agency of the NWS, are broader. The NWS’

products and services are key to severe storm preparedness and the mitigation of its impact:

its SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) models are used by emergency

evacuation planners; its wind speed measurements are used to develop building codes and to

design buildings; and its warnings and forecasts are instrumental to placing a timetable on

implementing preparedness actions and response efforts. But NOAA’s partnership role with

states in managing the Nation’s coastal zone, NOAA’s trustee responsibility for marine

resources, and other agencywide concerns compel NOAA to step outside of the traditional NWS

format in this preface to comment on Hurricane Andrew’s consequences in south Florida and

Louisiana.

NOAA and the NWS are dedicated to a continuing improvement in warnings and forecasts,

thereby allowing emergency management officials lead time to take lifesaving action. But, if

disastrous consequences are to be mitigated, the coastal zone and other areas at risk must be

managed in recognition of the awful threat to life and property that hurricanes pose.

Hurricanes, of course, are natural meteorological events. In the absence of people and their

property, hurricanes expend their force against marine and terrestrial ecosystems that adapt

to the storm’s destruction. People and their property, unfortunately, are not as resilient as

damaged ecosystems. Hurricanes frequently have caused significant loss of life and massive

damage to property and natural resources at tremendous cost both to public and private sectors.

Until the past 30 years, however, areas vulnerable to hurricanes have been relatively

undeveloped; vacation beach houses were "beach shacks" or "cottages," easily rebuilt after a

storm. Urban and suburban development was confined to relatively few areas, often limited in

its landward spread by wetlands.

The rush to the sun belt in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s fundamentally changed Coastal Plains

demographics. Beach cottages were replaced by million dollar dwellings, and suburban and

urban development became more extensive along the coast and extended much further inland.

Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew have been the most costly storms in history largely because there

is now more development in place to damage and destroy. Given current development patterns

and trends along the coast, we can anticipate both damages and costs to increase with future

storms. We would do well to heed the warnings that population growth and land use practice

in the Nation’s Coastal Plains have set a stage for a series of hurricane disasters and associated

economic consequences of unprecedented proportions. For example:

 Populations have grown explosively in coastal areas over the past 30 years. This growth

has created the obvious logistical problems associated with warning and safely transporting

ever-increasing numbers of residents out of harm’s way or to adequate shelters. This

inordinate burden is leading to evacuation times in some areas of the country that are

double the effective warning times that the National Hurricane Center (NHC) can provide.

There are other difficulties as well: there are significant coastal populations which have not
iv

experienced a hurricane and may be less able to prepare for one and respond properly

before, during, and after the event. In urban and suburban areas, even the best organized

government response may be unable to meet needs for shelter, food, and water.

 Development has been concentrated on barrier islands and in coastal flood plains. Such

development almost never relates to natural geographic or geomorphic limits of areas

vulnerable to hurricanes. In most places, infrastructure is designed and subdivisions are

approved without reference to the need to evacuate low-lying areas quickly. Coastal

construction setbacks, where they exist, often are inadequate to accommodate the storm

surge of a major hurricane. Structures employ architectural designs, materials, and

techniques that cannot withstand hurricanes. In booming communities vulnerable to

hurricanes, local building departments often are unable or unwilling to keep pace with code

enforcement&even if there is an adequate code to enforce. 

 These problems are exacerbated by continued destruction of and interference with natural

protective features: beaches, dunes, tidal wetlands, mangroves, and the like. Many state

and local planners and emergency managers now understand the importance of a healthy

beach/dune system and maintaining it by limiting so-called "hard" erosion control structures

and following regular maintenance programs; many others do not.

Hurricane Hugo

In 1989, Hurricane Hugo foreshadowed the scale of hurricane disasters yet to come. After

dealing a serious blow to the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, the major

force of the storm hit the mainland United States at Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge,

then Francis Marion National Forest before wreaking havoc for many miles inland. Despite

heavy damage to Charleston and its environs, the city largely was spared&at least compared

to the devastation it would have suffered had Hugo’s eye come ashore 20 miles further south.

The sight of once beautiful vacation homes reduced to wind and water-borne debris along

Charleston County’s barrier islands obscured the fact that Hugo’s wind effects could have been

far more significant had they struck a more populated area.

In the wind damage along the South Carolina coast, Hugo also provided a glimpse of building

code and engineering issues. Myrtle Beach was well north and east of the storm’s major effects,

but structures there that had been designed to withstand winds significantly greater than those

actually experienced performed poorly. Other areas suffered because South Carolina had no

statewide building code or hurricane resistance standards (and does not to this day) or because

local building codes were not enforced adequately. The almost complete destruction of mobile

homes in the path of the storm served notice once more that mobile homes are no place to be

during severe weather.
v

Hurricane Andrew

Andrew defines the current problem: the majority of the damage was inland, outside of the

primary storm surge areas where emergency preparedness and response officials usually focus

their attention. Much of the coastal development in the past 30 years has been outside

hurricane surge zones but well within wind zones.

Although Andrew caused significant flooding damage immediately adjacent to the coast, wind

damage caused most of the devastation. Water, in the form of storm surge and flooding, still

poses the greatest threat to public health and safety as local authorities must be able to

evacuate the population at risk in time. After all, had the topography of Cutler Ridge not

impeded the storm surge, it would have affected areas much further inland. Still, Andrew likely

will prove the norm for future storms rather than the exception: winds will pose a very

significant threat to life and safety and cause a major percentage of property damage.

In densely populated areas, it is all but impossible to evacuate for wind. Forecasters cannot yet

predict wind fields accurately, and the large numbers of residents that would need to be

evacuated to ensure an adequate margin of safety would overwhelm roads and shelters almost

immediately. On the other hand, given extensive development in vulnerable areas inland, no

longer can public officials afford to perceive hurricanes as merely flood/storm surge events.

Instead, emergency preparedness officials and land use planners must consider hurricanes as

much broader "wind/flood/storm surge" events affecting areas many miles inland. New

approaches and building codes must be developed to protect the public. All of Florida, for

example, must be considered vulnerable to the effects of hurricanes, regardless of how far from

the coast. All of its communities should implement hurricane preparedness and mitigation

policies.

Land Use Management

Advances in technology may improve long-range forecasting, and Weather Surveillance Radar1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) is helping to improve short-term warning and forecasting, but it is

unlikely that lead times can be increased significantly in the near future. Current lead times

cannot provide enough warning in many heavily populated areas to evacuate threatened

residents effectively.

NWS warning capabilities are only one side of the equation for reducing threats both to public

health and safety and to property. The other side is state and local government actions that

control development in hurricane-prone areas and plan for and carry out evacuations. Redefined

as wind/flood/storm surge events, hurricanes present state and local planners with five areas

of focus in addition to ongoing efforts.

 Emergency planners’ primary priority must be to evacuate residents at risk from storm

surge and other types of flooding, regardless of the extent of a hurricane’s potential wind

damage. These residents remain the most vulnerable to hurricanes. Planners must

continue to reduce evacuation times in areas vulnerable to flooding from storm surge. In

regions where development densities and patterns have outstripped the capacity of the
vi

area’s infrastructure to handle evacuations, the best that can be hoped for is to minimize

the number of residents in surge areas when the storm hits and to provide refuges of last

resort.

 Officials need to ensure that adequate building codes are in place and that they are

vigorously enforced. Building codes in coastal areas nationwide should be revised based on

the Andrew experience. Because many structures were destroyed when door or window

failures allowed wind pressure to demolish roofs from the interior, codes need to emphasize

appropriate door and window storm covers. Even areas well inland must have hurricane

resistance codes. Such codes should be enforced throughout the State of Florida.

 Regulations should be promulgated to require that new structures contain "hardened"

interior rooms to provide in-place hurricane shelters and require that, at a minimum,

mobile home parks have hardened sheltering for all residents.

 State and local officials need to devise programs to retrofit existing buildings to provide inplace hardened sheltering and to bring substandard housing into compliance with a

hurricane-resistant code.

 State and local officials need to revise land use planning, subdivision approval, and

permitting processes to consider the potential effects of severe storms.

Hurricane Andrew has given lessons to NOAA, too. For its part, in addition to continuing to

improve NWS warning and forecasting capabilities, NOAA will continue to work to make

Federal hurricane preparation and mitigation programs consistent. NOAA programs, with

relevance to coastal hazards mitigation, must work together more closely to provide better

services to state and other Federal agencies. As a beginning, the National Ocean Service (NOS)

currently is working to develop a response plan to provide needed immediate and longer term

products and services to states after coastal disasters. NOS also is developing new protocols

consistent with the Federal Response Plan. Finally, NOAA will seek improvements both in its

support for state coastal management programs and in the programs themselves.

To address the frightening potential consequences of increased hurricane activity, NOAA seeks

a new partnership with states. State and local governments, through natural resource agencies,

boards, and building inspectors, must work in collaboration with insurance companies, building

industries, and other private sector groups to minimize the general population’s exposure to the

threats of hurricanes.
vii

FOREWORD

This report on Hurricane Andrew was prepared by the DST after weeks of interviews and visits

to the damaged areas with Federal, state, and local officials in Florida and Louisiana.

Significant input also was provided by citizens in the affected areas.

The DST is particularly grateful to the NOAA employees in the affected areas for their

assistance, despite the extreme hardship endured by so many of the NOAA family. We are

grateful to the state and local officials and representatives of relief agencies who took time from

urgent duties to provide their impressions of the events during and after the storm’s onslaught.

We deeply appreciate the willingness of many citizens who shared their experiences with the

DST, despite the complete devastation of all their worldly possessions.

We commend the dedication and professionalism displayed by the NOAA staff as well as other

Federal, state, and local employees who remained at their post under the most extreme of

conditions, putting the public welfare ahead of their own safety. While this document is not

intended to chronicle the entire history of the storm and its aftermath, it assesses NOAA’s

performance and recommends where improvements are needed. 

We acknowledge, with admiration and gratitude, the many people whose individual and

collective efforts saved the lives of their fellow human beings. To all whose participation made

the response to Hurricane Andrew an overwhelming success, thank you.

The Disaster Survey Team 
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Acronyms .............................................................. x

Disaster Survey Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Summary of Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Hurricane Andrew: The Event and Its Impact ............................. 1

PART I: SOUTH FLORIDA

Chapter I.A Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Chapter I.B Summary of Preparedness Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter I.C NWS Contingency Planning and Backup Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Chapter I.D Summary of NWS Watches, Warnings, and Advisories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter I.E Summary of Information and Warning Services and 

Response Actions by Emergency Management and Media . . . . . . . . . . 37

Chapter I.F Public Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Chapter I.G Processing, Interpretation, and Dissemination of NWS

Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Chapter I.H Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chapter I.I Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
ix

PART II: LOUISIANA

Chapter II.A Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Chapter II.B Summary of Preparedness Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Chapter II.C NWS Contingency Planning and Backup Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . 87

Chapter II.D Summary of NWS Watches, Warnings, and Advisories . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter II.E Summary of Information and Warning Services and 

Response Actions by Emergency Management and Media . . . . . . . . . 97

Chapter II.F Public Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Chapter II.G Processing, Interpretation, and Dissemination of NWS

Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Chapter II.H Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Chapter II.I Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

APPENDICES

Appendix A Summary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B Florida Deaths Directly Attributable to Hurricane Andrew

August 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C Hurricane Andrew "Best Track" Summary:

August 16-28, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D Andrew’s Toll on Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Appendix E Louisiana Damage Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Appendix F Interagency Coordinating Committee on Hurricanes

(ICCOH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Appendix G Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

Afterword
x

ACRONYMS

AFB Air Force Base

AFOS Automation of Field Operations and Services

AOC Aircraft Operations Center

AOML Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory

AP Associated Press

ASOS Automated Surface Observing System

AVN Aviation Model

AWIPS Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System

BAM Beta Advection Model

BMS Bahamas Meteorological Service

CARCAH Chief Aerial Reconnaissance Coordination for all Hurricanes

CDT Central Daylight Time

CLIPER CLImatology-PERsistence hurricane tracking model

CPA Closest Point of Approach

CPCS Common Program Control Station

CWA County Warning Area

DEM Division of Emergency Management

DIFAX Digital Facsimile

DMSP Defense Military Satellite Program

DST Disaster Survey Team

EBS Emergency Broadcast System

EDT Eastern Daylight Time

EM Emergency Management

EOC Emergency Operations Center

ET Electronics Technician

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

ft Feet

FTS Federal Telephone System

GDS Graphic Decision System

GOES Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 

GOES-Next GOES-Next Generation Satellite

HF High Frequency

HLS Hurricane Local Statement

HPP Hurricane Preparedness Program

HRD Hurricane Research Division

ICCOH Interagency Coordinating Committee on Hurricanes

kts Knots

LALETS Louisiana Law Enforcement Telecommunications System

LMRFC Lower Mississippi River Forecast Center

MARS Military Affiliate Radio System

mb Millibars

MEOW Maximum Envelope of Water

Meteosat Meteorological Operations Satellite

MIC Meteorologist in Charge
xi

MOU/A Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement

mph Miles per hour

MSL Mean Sea Level

NAWAS National Warning System

NDBC National Data Buoy Center

NESDIS National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service

NEXRAD Next Generation Weather Radar

NFD National Forecast Division

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum

NGWLMS Next Generation Water Level Measurement System

NHC National Hurricane Center

NHC90 NHC 1990 Hurricane Computer Forecasting Program

NLETS National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System

nm Nautical miles

NMC National Meteorological Center

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NSSFC National Severe Storms Forecast Center

NWR NOAA Weather Radio

NOS National Ocean Service

NWS National Weather Service

NWSO NEXRAD Weather Service Office

NWWS NOAA Weather Wire Service

OEM Office of Emergency Management

OES Office of Ocean and Earth Sciences

OIC Official in Charge

OSF Operational Support Facility

PC Personal Computer

PUP Principal User Processor

QLM Quasi-Lagrangian Model

Rmax Radius of Maximum Wind

RFC River Forecast Center

RTA Remote Terminal to AFOS

SAB Synoptic Analysis Branch

SELS Severe Local Storms Branch of NSSFC

SHIFOR Statistical Hurricane Intensity Forecasting Model

SLOSH Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes

SRH Southern Region Headquarters

SWIS Satellite Weather Information System

SWODY1 Severe Weather Outlook&Day 1

SWODY2 Severe Weather Outlook&Day 2

SWOMCD Severe Weather Outlook&Mesoscale Convective Discussion

TCD Tropical Cyclone Discussion

TCM Tropical Cyclone Marine Advisory

TCP Tropical Cyclone Public Advisory

TCU Tropical Cyclone Update

TDL Techniques Development Laboratory

TROPAN Tropical Regional Analysis Facsimile Circuit

TSAF Tropical Satellite Analysis and Forecast
xii

UGC Universal Generic Code

UPI United Press International

UPS Uninterruptable Power Supply

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAFR U.S. Air Force Reserve

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UTC Coordinated Universal Time

VHF Very High Frequency

WCM Warning Coordination Meteorologist

WMO World Meteorological Organization

WPM Warning Preparedness Meteorologist

WSFO Weather Service Forecast Office

WSO Weather Service Office

WSR-57 Weather Surveillance Radar-1957

WSR-74(C,S) Weather Surveillance Radar-1974 (C-band, S-band)

WSR-88D Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler

WWAMKC SELS Severe Local Storm Watch Status Report
xiii

DISASTER SURVEY TEAM

SURVEY TEAM LEADER

Jennifer Joy Wilson&Assistant Secretary and Deputy Administrator,

NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

SURVEY TEAM COORDINATOR

James P. Travers, Meteorologist&Director, Operations Division,

Weather Service Headquarters, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Florida Team

Team Leader, W. Stanley Wilson, Oceanographer&Assistant

Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management,

National Ocean Service, NOAA, Washington, D.C.

William O. Alexander, Mesoscale Meteorologist&Office of

Meteorology, Weather Service Headquarters, NOAA, Silver Spring,

Maryland.

E. Jay Baker, Social Scientist and Associate Professor&Department of

Geography, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.

Bernard Palmer, Meteorologist in Charge&Weather Service Forecast

Office, NOAA, Columbia, South Carolina.

X. William Proenza, Meteorologist&Deputy Director, National

Weather Service Southern Region Headquarters, NOAA, Fort Worth,

Texas.

Kathy Sullivan, Oceanographer&Chief Scientist-Designate, NOAA,

Washington, D.C.

Herbert Lieb, Public Affairs Consultant&National Hurricane Center,

NOAA, Coral Gables, Florida.

William M. Frank, Meteorologist&Department of Meteorology, The

Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania.

David McKinnie, Program Analyst&National Ocean Service/Office of

Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA, Washington, D.C.
xiv

Timothy Goodspeed, Geographer&National Ocean Service/Office of

Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, NOAA, Washington,

D.C.

Mark Jacobsen, Living Marine Resources Specialist&National Ocean

Service/Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment,

NOAA, Washington, D.C. 

Louisiana Team

Team Leader, Ned A. Ostenso, Geophysicist&Assistant

Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, Office of Oceanic

and Atmospheric Research, NOAA, Washington, D.C.

Rainer Dombrowsky, Meteorologist&Office of Meteorology, Weather

Service Headquarters, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Jerry McDuffie, Meteorologist in Charge&Weather Service Forecast

Office, NOAA, Los Angeles, California.

Thomas H. Grayson, Meteorologist&Chief, Systems Operations

Division, National Weather Service Southern Region Headquarters,

NOAA, Fort Worth, Texas.

Wilson Shaffer, Atmospheric Scientist&Office of Systems

Development, Weather Service Headquarters, NOAA, Silver Spring,

Maryland.

Christopher R. Adams, Social Scientist, Consultant&Cooperative

Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State University,

Fort Collins, Colorado.

Patrick J. Slattery, Public Affairs Specialist&National Weather

Service Central Region Headquarters, NOAA, Kansas City, Missouri.

Scott Kroczynski, Hydrometeorologist&Office of Hydrology, Weather

Service Headquarters, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Mark Handel, Tropical Meteorologist, Consultant&Cambridge,

Massachusetts.
xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The tropical disturbance that grew into Hurricane Andrew developed in the central tropical

Atlantic Ocean on August 16, 1992. Eventually a category 4 storm on the Saffir-Simpson Scale,

Andrew went on to inflict more dollar damage than any natural disaster in United States

history. Upon its Florida landfall at 5 AM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on August 24, wind

from Andrew was a sustained 145 mph with gusts over 175 mph. Over a narrow area, the storm

surge reached more than 14 feet, with storm tides attaining nearly 17 feet (storm tides comprise

the sum of storm surge and astronomical tides).

Andrew traversed south Florida and entered the Gulf of Mexico just 4 hours after impacting the

east coast of Florida. After weakening to a category 3 over land, the storm quickly reintensified

to a category 4 as it moved across the gulf. Prior to its landfall in Louisiana at 4:30 AM EDT

on August 26, Andrew again weakened to a category 3. Its maximum sustained winds in

Louisiana were estimated at 120 mph with higher gusts.

The devastation left in Andrew’s wake over south Florida was immense. Total damage

estimates of about $25 billion cannot convey the profound impact of the storm. According to

insurance industry leaders, the total economic impact of Andrew will reach $35-40 billion by

1995. Moreover, the fabric of organized society was shredded in south Dade County, Florida.

A total of 126,000 houses were destroyed or damaged and 9,000 mobile homes were destroyed.

Andrew left at least 160,000 people homeless in Dade County alone. Perhaps years will be

required to rebuild the original infrastructure. The municipal electric power grid in Homestead

and Florida City was destroyed. Banking, and therefore much of society’s ability to function,

came to a halt. Businesses were unable to reopen because their employees were homeless and

struggling to shelter, clothe, and feed themselves and their families. A total of 86,000 people

lost their jobs. The National Guard provided tent cities and the essentials to live, but many

chose to remain in what was left of their homes for fear of looting. 

The damage from Andrew across Louisiana was overshadowed by what occurred in south

Florida, but the storm still had a profound effect. Damages from Andrew in Louisiana are

estimated to exceed $1 billion. Some small businesses were lost and many suffered some

damage. Much of the estimated losses were insured: about 3,300 single family, multifamily,

and mobile homes were destroyed. Over 18,000 units received some damage. As in south

Florida, the National Guard quickly took control, protecting the hardest hit areas from looting.

The storm’s effect on Louisiana public utilities was minimal. Quick action by local and

Louisiana state officials promoted both a rapid response to the disaster and immediate

launching of a coordinated recovery effort.

Despite the severe physical damages and crippling monetary losses, human casualties were

surprisingly few. In Florida, 15 deaths were directly attributed to the storm, with another 29

fatalities indirectly related. Those indirect fatalities were caused by electrocutions, cleanup

accidents, fires, and other incidents associated with recovery. In Louisiana, 8 direct and 9

indirect fatalities occurred. Indirect fatality totals depend on the broadness of definition and

vary greatly. For example, one major newspaper reported 85 indirect south Florida fatalities.

Those numbers include persons killed in motor vehicle accidents where a stop sign was down due

to Andrew. The number of indirect fatalities the disaster survey team uses (29 in south Florida
xvi

and 9 in Louisiana) are those for which the county medical examiner or parish coroner

determined the storm to be a contributing factor.

Even before the Presidential Declaration of Disaster, NOAA/NWS assembled a Disaster Survey

Team. The DST was responsible for assessing the performance of NOAA and the hazards

community prior to and during the hurricane. The hazards community consists of all Federal,

state, and local governmental entities, as well as the mass media and volunteer organizations,

involved in the distribution and dissemination of weather information for the protection of life

and property. Following the assessment, the DST was responsible for providing any necessary

recommendations for improvements.

The DST found that NOAA performed exceptionally well both prior to and during Hurricane

Andrew. The hurricane forecast track error was 30 percent less than average. Lead times on

hurricane watches and warnings were 3 to 6 hours better than average. Hurricane watches

were issued with 36 hours of lead time in south Florida and 43 hours in Louisiana. Hurricane

warnings were issued with 21 hours lead time in south Florida and 36 hours in Louisiana.

Throughout the event, NWS personnel, despite enormous personal hardship, supplied timely,

high quality information to the public via NOAA Weather Radio (NWR), NOAA Weather Wire

Service (NWWS), direct links with emergency management, and the mass media. To assure this

flow of vital information, contingency plans were activated for backup of the NHC and for the

Weather Service Forecast Office (WSFO) at Miami should they have become unable to function.

Those plans were not needed for the NHC, but WSFO Atlanta and Weather Service Offices

(WSO) at Tampa Bay and West Palm Beach provided forecasting issuance and backup warnings,

respectively, for WSFO Miami.

State, county/parish, and local emergency management agencies, working in concert with law

enforcement and based on information supplied by the NWS, coordinated some of the largest

evacuations in United States history. In south Florida, as well as Louisiana, literally hundreds

of thousands of people left their homes.

The DST found that the collection and dissemination of information, through appropriate

warnings and statements, need improvement. In particular, hurricane local statements (HLS)

need to be shortened and reorganized to provide more timely and specific information pertaining

to the local area. The DST found also that WSOs and WSFOs need to address storm-scale

events occurring within hurricanes by using appropriate severe weather warnings and

statements, including tornado warnings. Additionally, Andrew re-emphasized the need for

improvement in hurricane intensity forecasting. Finally, the DST found that wind, not storm

surge, was the major cause of direct deaths in Andrew. Still, these statistics need to be kept in

perspective: 12 of the 15 deaths directly attributed to Andrew in Florida were caused by wind

as compared to the potential for hundreds of fatalities that could have occurred from storm

surge. The reality is that evacuation from wind would involve far too many people to be

accomplished; alternative shelter may be necessary.
xvii

SUMMARY OF

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PART I

Chapter I.B

Finding I.B.1: The NHC is charged with a national focus on hurricane readiness, but it

dominates the NWS hurricane preparedness program in south Florida.

Recommendation I.B.1: The NWS should staff WSFO Miami with a Warning Coordination

Meteorologist (WCM) as soon as possible to enhance the WSFO’s preparedness/hazard

awareness program. 

Finding I.B.2: This was the first time that the NHC (and the collocated WSFO Miami) facility

had been directly affected by a major hurricane. The impact of Andrew proved the vulnerability

of NHC to the effects of extreme wind.

Recommendation I.B.2: Better protected, self-contained facilities should be provided to the

NHC and all NWS coastal offices. This is even more critical to National Centers, such as NHC,

for which full backup procedures are extremely difficult to implement.

Finding I.B.3: Hurricane Andrew was characterized by devastating effects of strong inland

winds in addition to powerful storm surges. The devastation that eventually occurred over south

Florida heightened the awareness in other vulnerable areas to the significant inland wind

damage which can accompany a hurricane.

Recommendation I.B.3: The NWS should provide technical assistance for a much more

concerted preparedness and awareness effort by state and local emergency management and

such other cognizant organizations as state coastal zone management agencies in areas of high

vulnerability.

Finding I.B.4: Since the lead time for evacuation may be no more than 24 hours, it may not

be practical or even possible to evacuate all inland residents in the path of a hurricane eyewall.

Recommendation I.B.4: The NWS should work with FEMA, state, and local emergency

planners in exploring the potential of developing a "refuge of last resort" methodology, as

appropriate, for occasions when critical saturation points are reached in the flow of evacuation

traffic.
xviii

Chapter I.C

Finding I.C.1: The detailing of two hurricane specialists to the National Meteorological Center

(NMC) is not sufficient to provide adequate continuous backup to NHC operations.

Recommendation I.C.1: The NWS should adopt a plan that would increase the number of

forecasters capable of acting as hurricane specialists during an emergency brought on by a

hurricane threatening NHC. There must be adequate staffing at both NHC and the backup site.

One plan would be to provide hurricane forecast training to a select group of forecasters, possibly

from NMC, who could fly to NHC as replacements for hurricane specialists dispatched to staff

the backup center.

Finding I.C.2: When NHC staff is drawn down to implement the backup at NMC, insufficient

staff remains at NHC to handle advisories of multiple tropical cyclones properly.

Recommendation I.C.2: See Recommendation I.C.1. 

Finding I.C.3: Facilities for interacting with the media are very limited at NMC.

Recommendation I.C.3: The NMC should formulate a plan for handling the extensive

interactions with the media that are required when a hurricane is threatening the United States

coastline. Since NMC is the logical site for the backup forecast center, plans should be made to

accommodate the large number of media personnel who will descend upon the backup center,

especially if it is required to take over the primary forecast mission.

Chapter I.D

Finding I.D.1: NHC watch and warning lead times during Hurricane Andrew were longer than

average for landfalling hurricanes. That extra margin of safety was at least partially

responsible for allowing hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate safely from south Florida.

Recommendation I.D.1: NOAA and the NWS should work toward increasing watch/warning

lead times by supporting efforts to enhance our understanding of tropical systems, improving

numerical models, providing greater data availability to feed the models, and enhancing

operational forecast methodologies. A significant step in this direction would be the collocation

of the Environmental Research Laboratory’s Hurricane Research Division (HRD) with NHC to

allow for the synergism of research and operations.

Finding I.D.2: HLSs from WSO/WSFOs tend to be too lengthy, too infrequent, tend to reiterate

NHC advisories too much, and tend not to include enough specific information about local

conditions.
xix

Recommendation I.D.2: The NWS should explore options to make HLSs more effective. This

should include use of the "Short Term Forecast" concept and its relationship to HLSs and

hurricane advisories. Furthermore, coastal offices should re-evaluate the manner in which data

are collected and used to create HLS products. Emphasis should be made on use of on-station

software, emergency management information, and remote sensing data to create a highly

specific, current product.

Chapter I.E

Finding I.E.1: Concern was expressed by two emergency managers over the tone set by NHC

on Friday afternoon when a "Have a good weekend...tune back in on Sunday or Monday"

message was given to emergency management. Some officials felt that message could have

promoted a less-than-serious attitude and that it could have caused them not to pay close

attention to storm information during the weekend.

Recommendation I.E.1: Although NHC is extremely concerned about how information is

presented, care must continue to be exercised not to send unintended messages.

Finding I.E.2: Many coastal emergency managers do not understand the scientific reasoning

involved in designating hurricane watch and warning areas. They want to evacuate either all

or none of their coastal surge vulnerable area rather than parts of counties.

Recommendation I.E.2: There needs to be better dialogue between NHC and emergency

management involving the designation of hurricane watch and warning areas. Conference calls

following or preceding a watch or warning issuance always should contain a thorough

explanation for the choice of the end points of the areas. NHC also should explore the feasibility

of including this information in the tropical cyclone discussions. Courses offered at NHC for

emergency managers should include a segment on the subject of designating watch and warning

areas.

Finding I.E.3: One critical aspect of hurricane forecasting&the intensification of storms&lags

far behind the balance of the science. SHIFOR, the computer model used to forecast hurricane

intensification, is old and ineffective. It does a poor job of handling rapid intensification.

Recommendation I.E.3: NHC, NMC, and HRD should redouble their efforts to develop models

and operational techniques to forecast tropical cyclone intensity changes more effectively. In

turn, NOAA should support research efforts at understanding and predicting cyclone intensity

changes.

Finding I.E.4: Some emergency managers could have made greater use of hurricane strike

probabilities and personal computer (PC) software in their decision-making process.

Recommendation I.E.4: Emergency management needs to use all the tools available to them

to provide information for their decision-making processes, including PC-based software
xx

specifically designed for that purpose. The NWS should work with FEMA to support more

workshops for coastal emergency managers. This should include instructions on how to use

these tools effectively.

Finding I.E.5: As a result of increased anxiety caused by Hurricane Andrew, many south

Florida residents indicated they would evacuate for future major hurricanes. Indeed, if this was

the case, evacuation times for a category 4 or 5 hurricane striking the Florida Keys would

increase from the pre-Andrew level of 37 hours to 70-80 hours, depending on the percentage of

residents evacuating.

Recommendation I.E.5: NWS and FEMA should work in concert to develop response options

as outlined in Recommendations I.B.4 and I.F.2.

Finding I.E.6: The link between the NWS, emergency management, and the broadcast media

is critical to any community warning system. A partnership developed to coordinate NHC

information through a broadcast "pool" enabled a large number of media outlets to receive

broadcast footage from NHC without crowding the facility and compromising the operational

setting.

Recommendation I.E.6: NWS should support development of similar broadcast pools at local

offices along the hurricane-prone coasts, as well as at NMC, should backup for NHC be required.

Finding I.E.7: Television meteorologists were instrumental in encouraging evacuation from

the threatened areas. Many of the television broadcasts were simulcast on AM and FM radio.

This was particularly useful since many residents received lifesaving advice through their

battery-operated radios when television transmitters were knocked off the air.

Recommendation I.E.7: NWS offices along hurricane-threatened areas should continue to

encourage proactive, weather-conscious media who will provide that essential link with the

public to convey lifesaving information.

Finding I.E.8: Efforts of the NWS, in conjunction with state and local emergency management

and the news media, resulted in clear and motivating messages to the general public. Those

messages resulted in a superb public response, except for some residents of Miami Beach, and

may have saved countless lives.

Recommendation I.E.8: NHC and WSFO Miami should work with the local media to target

those populations in Miami Beach where the response was deficient.
xxi

Chapter I.F

Finding I.F.1: NHC and NWS representatives, when making a case for refuges of last resort,

may have contributed unintentionally to the problem of public resistance to evacuation by

stressing the danger of being caught trying to evacuate.

Recommendation I.F.1: NWS and NHC representatives need to stress to the public the

importance of referring to appropriate state and local emergency management directives about

evacuation orders.

Finding I.F.2: If residents of the hard hit Naranja Lakes area had not evacuated because of

the storm surge threat, more deaths likely would have resulted from the effects of wind.

Recommendation I.F.2: Since in many cases evacuation is not a viable option, the NWS and

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should work together to encourage the

concept of engineered in-residence shelters to protect from severe wind without invoking

evacuation procedures.

Finding I.F.3: Many residents whose houses began to disintegrate during the storm followed

"tornado safety rules" and went to the interior part of their house away from windows and

outside walls.

Recommendation I.F.3: NWS and emergency management agencies should make "tornado

safety rules" a standard component of hurricane awareness efforts, especially for strong storms.

The public also should be better educated about the kinds of construction and building designs

which are most vulnerable in strong hurricanes.

Chapter I.G

Finding I.G.1: Small errors in the track forecast produced by the Aviation Model were

impressive for this small sample of forecasts.

Recommendation I.G.1: NOAA should continue to support development of such models. In

order to use these models most effectively, methods need to be explored to gather better data in

and around tropical cyclones. The Omega dropwinsonde experiment should be conducted to

evaluate the potential of this capability.

Finding I.G.2: The storm surge impacted a relatively small area of coastline, but the SLOSH

model accurately depicted the surge in south Florida. 

Recommendation I.G.2: Refinements to the SLOSH model should continue. Also, training

of NWS offices and emergency managers in its use should be emphasized. The SLOSH model

should be validated in cooperation with the NOS/Office of Ocean and Earth Sciences (OES) and
xxii

others to further continued improvements in the model. A greater effort should be made to

document its physics and the validation efforts that justify its use. NOS should assist with such

a documentation.

Finding I.G.3: On-station computers at WSOs and WSFOs are inadequate to run storm surge

and applications programs.

Recommendation I.G.3: Coastal NWS offices should be provided sufficient PC hardware and

software to display SLOSH MEOW (Maximum Envelop of Water) data as well as to run surge

applications and hurricane decision-making programs. The Advanced Weather Interactive

Processing System (AWIPS), under development for future NWS Weather Forecast Offices,

should be able to support these programs.

Chapter I.H

Finding I.H.1: Despite the extensive commercial media coverage of Andrew, both the NWWS

and NWR were well received and were utilized as official and timely sources of NWS information

regarding the event.

Recommendation I.H.1: The NWS should continue strong encouragement of the widespread

use of NWWS and NWR as official sources of NWS information. High priority should be placed

on planned NWR upgrades and more wind-resistant transmitters, featuring voice synthesis, to

improve the quality and efficiency of NWR dissemination during major weather events. The

NWS should develop partnerships with FEMA and other organizations to increase NWR

coverage as well as the broadcasting of critical pre- and post-event information.

Finding I.H.2: NHC made effective use of the Florida National Warning System (NAWAS)

circuit to communicate with Florida emergency managers and Florida WSOs on important

hurricane information.

Recommendation I.H.2: FEMA, NWS, and state emergency management offices should

develop procedures to use the national NAWAS circuit for multistate conference calls so that

NHC can brief all appropriate emergency management officials on the network during a

hurricane threat.

Finding I.H.3: Excessive heat build-up contributed to the failure of the IBM mainframe

computer at the NHC during the hurricane. This was the most serious communications failure

at NHC because of the IBM’s role in driving the McIDAS VDUC, a principal source of interactive

satellite data for the NHC staff. In addition, other important circuits failed which depended on

the IBM.

Recommendation I.H.3: The NWS should install a stand-alone air-conditioning system for

the NHC independent of leased commercial facilities. This would greatly minimize the heating

problem of critical communications and computer equipment.
xxiii

Chapter I.I

Finding I.I.1: Satellite imagery is the only source of information over data-sparse oceans,

except for ships which generally avoid rough weather.

Recommendation I.I.1: NOAA must make every effort to ensure that the GOES-Next

(Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-Next Generation Satellite) program

remains on schedule. Meanwhile, No-GOES plans need to be tested routinely.

Finding I.I.2: Aircraft reconnaissance is a necessary and vital tool for measuring storm

intensity, for defining wind fields, and for calibrating satellite estimates of storm intensity.

However, the current airframes are aging and provide limited range and performance

characteristics. 

Recommendation I.I.2: Aircraft reconnaissance of tropical cyclones must continue. In order

to provide high quality data on the storm and its environment, NOAA should explore costeffective options on future sensors and airframes. This must be done now if we are to make

effective use of next generation models for tropical cyclone intensity and track forecasting.

Finding I.I.3: The precision, range, and refinement offered by the WSR-88D allowed for precise

location not only of the eye but also, long before landfall, of stronger elements in the spiral

bands. The ability of the WSO at Melbourne to observe and report on these small but significant

features enabled them to allay public fears about a potentially approaching hurricane.

Recommendation I.I.3: Efforts by the NWS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and

the Department of Defense (DOD) to deploy the WSR-88D nationwide must continue. In

addition, NOAA needs to assure staffing of its NWS Doppler radar equipped offices with properly

trained personnel in order to take best advantage of this powerful data source.

Finding I.I.4: Wind observations are taken at varying heights and with different sampling

strategies, making the determination of winds during a severe storm difficult to assess. 

Recommendation I.I.4: The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology should continue

to work with the various Federal agencies to ensure that wind observation adjustments are

standardized for height and sampling interval variations to ensure consistency of data.

Finding I.I.5: Many wind observation sites failed not because of a failure of the instrument but

because of the manner in which the support hardware was constructed and assembled.

Recommendation I.I.5: The NWS and FAA need to inventory their F420 anemometer

installations in hurricane-threatened areas. The NWS and FAA should consider retrofitting

suspect F420 sites with a locking cross arm prior to the 1994 hurricane season. Furthermore,

the NWS Automatic Surface Observing System (ASOS) program office should investigate the

potential for failures in the ASOS wind mast and sensors during high wind episodes.
xxiv

Finding I.I.6: Valuable wind and pressure observations were lost when the data-gathering

systems were powered down or removed before Andrew’s landfall. 

Recommendation I.I.6: Agencies with meteorological data-gathering equipment in the path

of a hurricane should be encouraged to continue the data collection process throughout the

event.

PART II

Chapter II.B

Finding II.B.1: There is an insufficient supply of safety and preparedness materials in support

of NWS field offices, local emergency preparedness officials, and the public.

Recommendation II.B.1: NOAA and the Department of Commerce should increase their

support for developing, printing, and distributing high quality preparedness and awareness

materials. Present cooperative efforts with other agencies and the private sector to develop and

distribute awareness and preparedness materials should be increased.

Finding II.B.2: The local print media is more reactive in community preparedness than

proactive. Historically, in south Louisiana, the print media has not actively participated in

preseason hurricane preparedness efforts, such as awareness campaigns. On the other hand,

during the 72 hours prior to Andrew, they were extremely effective in providing their readership

with detailed preparedness information.

Recommendation II.B.2: NWS offices in south Louisiana need to develop stronger cooperative

relationships with the print media to enhance their involvement in the hazards awareness and

mitigation program.

Finding II.B.3: Local emergency managers in south Louisiana were very proactive, taking the

early initiative in dealing with Hurricane Andrew. 

Recommendation II.B.3: The NWS must continue working closely with local emergency

managers to ensure that together they promote a unified awareness program which elicits the

desired public response.
xxv

Chapter II.D

Finding II.D.1: Users of NWS products would like more specific, technical information to assist

them in their decision-making process.

Recommendation II.D.1: The NHC should work with users to define what additional

information is required and to develop a means of communicating that information to them.

Finding II.D.2: Hurricane local statements were too closely tied to the issuance of hurricane

advisories. As a result, the dissemination of critical information concerning tornadic events was

delayed.

Recommendation II.D.2: The issuance of hurricane local statements should be event driven,

rather than tied exclusively to routine NHC issuances.

Finding II.D.3: During the peak period of tornado activity, several reports of tornadoes were

highlighted in the HLSs. One of these reports proved to be erroneous. Rather than issue a

corrected HLS, the WSFO issued a special weather statement to acknowledge the error. This

could have caused confusion and loss of precious time for users during a period of rapidly

changing events.

Recommendation II.D.3: NWS field offices should follow established NWS formats for issuing

corrections.

Chapter II.E

Finding II.E.1: FEMA/NWS-sponsored Hurricane Response and Decision-making Workshops

are conducted only a few times each year. These workshops are incapable of reaching sufficient

numbers of emergency officials. This limits the effectiveness of the hurricane preparedness

program.

Recommendation II.E.1: FEMA and the NWS should increase the number of annual

hurricane workshops to train coastal emergency management officials.

Finding II.E.2: Due to the close proximity of the WSFO, an agreement with the city allows for

a dedicated meteorologist to be dispatched from the WSFO to the local Emergency Operations

Center (EOC) during hurricane events which may threaten the city.

Recommendation II.E.2: Appropriate NWS staff should be dedicated to work with emergency

management officials during major hazardous weather events.
xxvi

Finding II.E.3: Formal evacuation clearance studies for southwest Louisiana have yet to be

completed.

Recommendation II.E.3: FEMA and the USACE, with NWS support, should accelerate their

efforts to complete evacuation studies for all hurricane-prone coastal areas.

Finding II.E.4: In general, coastal residents know that they have a potential storm surge

problem. However, in some highly populated areas, such as Greater New Orleans, there are

preliminary evacuation studies but no proven orderly plan for the safe and timely evacuation

of the entire metropolitan area. Furthermore, the scope of these studies does not address

regional complications which can compromise orderly evacuation.

Recommendation II.E.4: FEMA, in concert with the NWS, should ensure the completion of

local evacuation studies and integrate them into a comprehensive regional evacuation plan.

Finding II.E.5: The emergency management community of southeast Louisiana felt strongly

that the fear of looting was partially responsible for a smaller than expected number of

evacuees.

Recommendation II.E.5: Local governments, with NWS and FEMA assistance, need to

educate residents to alleviate these inaccurate perceptions.

Finding II.E.6: There were a few instances where one local television station presented

forecast track scenarios that conflicted with official NHC forecasts. That caused some problems

for local parish and NWS officials.

Recommendation II.E.6: The local NWS offices in Louisiana should make a renewed effort

to impress upon the local media that providing consistent information to the public is critical

during emergency situations.

Chapter II.F

Finding II.F.1: Many southeast Louisiana residents did not understand the full extent of

danger from storm surge.

Recommendation II.F.1: The NWS needs to work more closely with FEMA, as well as state

and local officials, to develop more effective preparedness information about storm surge.

Presentations tailored to local areas could provide information about situations to which

residents could better relate.

Finding II.F.2: Some south Louisiana residents interviewed commented that they had

evacuated highly vulnerable areas only to find themselves threatened by other hurricane

dangers.
xxvii

Recommendation II.F.2: The NWS, in concert with local emergency management officials,

should ensure that evacuation studies are up to date and accurate. Given widespread

distribution, the results of these studies can direct the public to appropriate shelter.
xxviii

Finding II.F.3: Despite the efforts of the NWS and state and local emergency managers, not

all residents heeded the various evacuation requests even though their lives may have been in

jeopardy had the storm made landfall further east along the Louisiana coast.

Recommendation II.F.3: The NWS and FEMA need to increase their efforts to educate and

train the public. Each agency needs to consider expanding their training capabilities to

overcome the public’s denial of the threat from hurricanes.

Finding II.F.4: Some residents of Greater New Orleans who evacuated and later returned to

their homes felt that local officials overreacted in their evacuation recommendations, especially

since Andrew made landfall further west than projected.

Recommendation II.F.4: The NWS needs to work closely with the emergency management

community in convincing this most skeptical segment of the population that the advantages of

evacuating far outweigh the disadvantages of remaining in place.

Chapter II.G

Finding II.G.1: WSFO Slidell, being collocated with the Lower Mississippi River Forecast

Center (LMRFC), had access to RFC PCs and was able to run SLOSH MEOW and other

hurricane decision-making applications.

Recommendation II.G.1: See Recommendation I.G.3.

Chapter II.H

Finding II.H.1: The Universal Generic Codes (UGC) were incorrectly entered in several of the

products disseminated by south Louisiana offices.

Recommendation II.H.1: NWS offices should perform more on-the-spot quality control of

products prior to their public release. The use of software, such as version 6.0 of SRWarn, would

help eliminate many of these errors.

Finding II.H.2: Currently, not all coastal WSOs have access to the hurricane hotline.

Recommendation II.H.2: NOAA needs to expand the hurricane hotline to all coastal WSOs

in hurricane vulnerable areas.

Finding II.H.3: The use of Army MARS (Military Affiliate Radio System) within the Louisiana

emergency communications system was very successful.
xxix

Recommendation II.H.3: The NWS and FEMA need to coordinate with Army MARS to

ensure that these capabilities can be extended to other locations.

Finding II.H.4: The State of Louisiana, Division of Emergency Management, currently does

not have a fully automated information redistribution system.

Recommendation II.H.4: The NWS and FEMA should encourage the State of Louisiana to

explore options for providing a fully automated communications system to law enforcement

agencies and local emergency operating centers. Once in place, the NWS should arrange to link

with that system allowing two-way communication of critical warning information between the

NWS and the emergency management community.

Chapter II.I

Finding II.I.1: The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has decided to remove all large navigational

buoys and replace them with other, smaller types of buoys. The replacement buoys are too small

to be fitted with meteorological instruments. Loss of the current buoys, in the near future, will

mean the loss of hourly data from stations along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts.

Recommendation II.I.1: The NWS, through its National Data Buoy Center, should ensure

that sufficient capabilities are present to maintain hourly observations along the Atlantic and

Gulf of Mexico coastal waters.

Finding II.I.2: The implementation of service maintenance fees has resulted in the removal

of meteorological equipment from gulf oil platforms, and a significant loss of data has occurred.

Recommendation II.I.2: NOAA must review its position on charging oil platforms a service

fee to maintain meteorological equipment.

Finding II.I.3: Although Andrew did not move into WSO Houston’s effective Doppler range,

the WSR-88D radar did provide extremely detailed reflectivity data on the storm.

Recommendation II.I.3: See Recommendation I.I.3.
xxx

This tranquil scene was taken at Sewell Park in Florida located on the mouth

of the Miami River on a normal day.

This is Sewell Park just after daybreak on August 24&water is still elevated.
xxxi

Aerial photo of the marina "Gables by the Sea"

located near Gables Estates, Florida. Numerous

boats were forced ashore by the 9- to 16-ft storm

surge.
1

HURRICANE ANDREW:

THE EVENT AND ITS IMPACT

The intense winds accompanying Hurricane Andrew caused massive damage in southern Dade

County and rendered it the costliest storm in United States history. The mind-numbing

statistics of Andrew include 126,000 single family houses destroyed or damaged and 9,000

mobile homes destroyed. Officials ordered entire complexes bulldozed because there were no

salvageable structures. Mobile home parks were cleared to make room for temporary housing.

Andrew left 160,000 people homeless in Dade County alone. A total of 86,000 residents lost jobs,

many permanently. Still, Florida was spared from an even larger disaster. Andrew was a

compact, fast-moving, relatively dry storm. Had it been larger, slower, or carried more rain, its

consequences would have been even more devastating. Further, and more significantly,

Andrew’s track minimized the damage to Dade County. Had the eye of the storm crossed the

coast just 10 miles further to the north, it would have devastated downtown Miami, probably

causing greater loss of life and tens of billions of dollars more in property damage. Andrew

would have affected not only south Florida but the global economy since Miami is a very

prominent world banking center.

Andrew was the third strongest landfalling hurricane in the United States this century. The

estimated central pressure at landfall in Florida was 922 millibars (mb). The storm was

classified at the upper threshold of category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson intensity scale (see

appendix G). After raking Dade County, Andrew continued rapidly westward across south

Florida and remained an intense storm as it traversed the Gulf of Mexico. Coincident with its

landfall in Louisiana, it caused further significant damage. Although lives were lost both in

Florida and Louisiana, the number of deaths was small considering the magnitude of

destruction to property. That low number of fatalities was due partially to accurate forecasts

and effective preparations and partially to the limited effect of storm surge. In Florida, 15

deaths are directly attributable to Andrew (29 indirect, including post-event electrocutions,

cleanup accidents, heart attacks, and the like). In Louisiana, 8 fatalities are directly related to

the storm and another 9 indirect.

In Louisiana, preliminary data for the 36-parish disaster area indicated that 3,301 single,

multifamily, and mobile homes were destroyed, and 18,247 units received major or minor

damages. Data compiled by a consortium of state agencies and groups with specific

responsibilities in agriculture indicated that estimated agricultural losses would exceed $288

million. Sugarcane yield losses were estimated at $128.4 million, cotton losses at $68.2 million,

and forestry-related losses at $38.6 million. The consortium also estimated losses of $13.2

million for the soybean crop, $12.7 million for corn, and $9.1 million for rice.

History of the Storm

Andrew formed from a tropical wave that moved off the African coast on August 14, 1992. The

"best track" analysis of the storm’s track is shown in figure 1. ("Best track" is a term used by

the NHC to describe the closest post-event approximation possible on the track of a
2

Figure 1 & Best track positions for Hurricane Andrew
3

tropical system, based on satellite imagery, surface and ship observations, and any other data

available.) Since the system was still outside of air reconnaissance range, satellite imagery was

used exclusively to monitor the movement and structural changes to the developing system. By

2 PM EDT on August 16, the system had developed spiral cloud bands with wind speed

estimated at 30 knots (34 miles per hour [mph]). The best track analysis indicates that the

storm became a tropical depression at about that time.

On August 17, Andrew was classified as a tropical storm. It moved along a west-northwesterly

track until August 22. The storm formed and intensified in an environment of weak easterly

vertical wind shear. Large-scale processes that lead to tropical cyclogenesis are not well

understood, but both observational and numerical modelling studies consistently show that

cyclones can form and intensify readily in conditions of weak vertical shear, or sometimes in

regions of moderate easterly shear. However, significant westerly shear over the top of a

tropical cyclone is usually unfavorable for intensification or even maintenance of the storm.

During August 19-20, Andrew moved into a region with strong upper-level southwesterly winds

associated with an upper-level low pressure system situated northwest of the storm. The

resulting vertical shear is the probable cause of the observed filling of the central pressure to

about 1015 mb. During this period, aircraft reconnaissance found that the storm circulation at

lower levels was poorly organized, and satellite imagery showed only intermittent deep

convection in the core region.

During August 21, the upper level low moved away from the storm, and Andrew was once again

in an environment with vertical shears favoring intensification. It also turned west and

accelerated to about 18 mph as high pressure north of the storm intensified, strengthening the

easterly flow within which Andrew was embedded. The storm then followed an almost due

westward track until it crossed Florida. Andrew rapidly deepened and reached hurricane

intensity by 8 AM EDT on August 22. By 2 PM EDT on August 23, Andrew possessed a central

pressure of 922 mb. It was at the upper end of category 4 strength (on the Saffir-Simpson scale)

when its eye passed over the northern part of Eleuthera Island in the Bahamas on August 23

and the southern Berry Islands on August 24. Extensive damage occurred in these regions.

Eleuthera experienced a high-water level (storm surge and waves) of 25 feet (ft) at the town of

The Current.

Andrew weakened briefly on August 24, then rapidly reintensified. Once again, it deepened to

have a minimum central pressure of 922 mb as it crossed the coast near Homestead Air Force

Base (AFB), Florida, at 5:05 AM EDT, August 24. That pressure estimate was substantiated

by pressure readings from barometers near the landfall, several of which were pressure chamber

tested for accuracy following Andrew. 

The storm was unusually compact. An aircraft penetration less than an hour before landfall

showed that hurricane-force winds were confined to a region approximately 30 nautical miles

(nm) in radius, with peak observed winds of 162 knots (kts) (186 mph) at a flight level of 10,000

ft (figure 2). The maximum sustained 1-minute surface (10-meter elevation) winds over

southern Florida were approximately 125 kts (144 mph).

The most severe damage occurred along the swath of the eye and in the surrounding eyewall.

Unofficial estimates of the pressure gradient in the eyewall on the north side of the storm
4

Figure 2 
5

indicate that it may have been as large as 10 mb per nm. This is indicative of the extreme

winds largely responsible for the tremendous damage.

Andrew was by far the most expensive natural disaster in United States history in terms of

property loss (approximately $25 billion). In defiance of the conventional wisdom on hurricane

effects in the United States, most of the damage was caused by the severe winds rather than the

storm surge. The damage in Louisiana was substantial, over $1 billion, with about $300 million

agricultural impact. The tornado at La Place was by far the most damaging Andrew-related

element to manmade structures in Louisiana.

Hurricane Andrew continued westward across the southern tip of the Florida peninsula and

exited on the west coast about 4 hours after it made landfall. The storm remained intense as

it crossed the Gulf of Mexico, with surface pressure filling only to about 950 mb. During the 48

hours prior to landfall in Louisiana, two cycles of reintensification occurred, both the result of

interactions between high pressure to the northeast and a mid-latitude trough to the northwest.

As the high weakened, the influence of the mid-latitude trough became dominant. Steering

winds across the northern gulf were altered; Andrew turned to the west-northwest and slowed

its forward motion to 10 mph.

Andrew weakened prior to landfall, skirting Louisiana’s coastline for about 10 hours before

coming ashore near Point Chevreuil, about 20 nm west-southwest of Morgan City, Louisiana.

The storm made landfall at 4:30 AM EDT on August 26. With an estimated landfall central

pressure of 956 mb and sustained winds of 120 mph, Andrew struck the sparsely populated

portion of south-central Louisiana as a category 3 hurricane. It filled very rapidly, weakening

to tropical storm strength by early afternoon and to a depression by evening. On August 28, the

remnants of Andrew merged with a cold front and were no longer considered a tropical weather

system.

Wind Distribution

Intense, compact storms, such as Andrew, are infrequent but not rare. They are characterized

by extremely strong pressure gradients and resulting intense winds in and near the eyewall.

Figure 3a is a preliminary analysis of surface winds of Hurricane Andrew OVER WATER near

the time of landfall. The wind analyses at flight level were reconstructed from available data

sources and empirically adjusted to estimate surface values over water, using correction factors

appropriate for over-water conditions. Sustained winds over land are typically weaker than

surface winds over water, but surface winds over land tend to have larger gust factors than overwater surface winds. Superimposed on the wind estimates of figure 3a is a map of the region

of southern Florida where Andrew made landfall, to give the scale of the storm and of the likely

regions of intense winds. Note that the strongest winds were ahead and to the right side, with

respect to storm motion, of the storm and, therefore, approximately coincided with the regions

of maximum damage discussed elsewhere in this report. It is possible that the radius of

maximum winds might have been a few miles smaller at the surface than is shown in these

analyses since the analyses do not take into account outward sloping of the eyewall with height.

Figure 3b is a preliminary estimate of the over-water surface winds at the approximate time

that Andrew made landfall on the coast of Louisiana. A map of the region is overlaid for 
6

Figure 3a & Preliminary estimate of the surface winds OVER WATER just before Hurricane

Andrew made landfall in Florida. These winds are estimated empirically from flight level

analyses using correction factors appropriate for over-water conditions only. A map of southern

Florida is superimposed for reference. (M. Powell, personal communication)
7

Figure 3b & As in figure 3a but for landfall in

Louisiana. (M. Powell, personal

communication)
8

MAX WINDS PATH LENGTH PATH WIDTH

(MPH) (MI) (YDS) (MI)

_____________________________________________________________________

F-0 < 73 PL0 < 1.0 PW0<18 <.01

F-1 73-112 PL1 1.0-3.1 PW1 18-55 .01-.03

F-2 113-157 PL2 3.2-9.9 PW2 56-175 .03-.09

F-3 158-206 PL3 10 - 31 PW3 176-556 .10-.29

scaling reference. Note that figures 3a and 3b are drawn on different scales. Once again, it is

emphasized that the wind values shown are not valid over land: hurricane surface winds over

land vary from those over water due to a variety of factors, including orography, surface

roughness, and stability of the boundary layer.

Hurricane-spawned Tornadoes

There were no confirmed sightings of tornadoes over either the Bahamas or Florida. A few

unconfirmed funnel clouds were reported in western Florida after sunrise. There were

14 confirmed tornadoes in association with Andrew’s landfall on the Louisiana coast, including

one that killed two persons at La Place, Louisiana. In Mississippi, 27 tornadoes were confirmed,

and at least two damage-producing tornadoes were confirmed over Alabama. Damaging

tornadoes in Georgia on August 27 and in Delaware and Maryland on August 27 and 28 may

have been associated with the remnants of Andrew.

In south Louisiana, tornadoes ranged from F-0 to F-3 on the Fujita tornado intensity scale

(figure 4). A tornado of F-3 intensity touched down near the subdivision of Belle Pointe, near

the city of Reserve located in St. John the Baptist Parish. The tornado skipped along a 9- to 10-

mile path between Reserve and La Place on the evening of August 25. The best estimate of

tornado inflicted damage is in excess of $20 million. Table E.1, appendix E, provides a

breakdown of the tornado damage inflicted upon St. John the Baptist Parish.

Figure 4 & Fujita tornado intensity scale.
9

Rainfall and Flooding

The hydrologic impact of Hurricane Andrew, throughout the entire life of the system, was

generally minimal. While copious amounts of rain fell at some locations, there were no reports

of major flooding.

As Hurricane Andrew passed over the Bahamas and Florida, the storm was compact and moved

relatively rapidly. This movement limited the duration and amount of rainfall. Heaviest

observed rainfall in Florida occurred inland across northwestern Dade and southwestern

Broward Counties, where amounts ranged up to 8 inches (all rainfall amounts are storm totals;

see appendix A, tables A.1 and A.2, for rainfall observations). Virtually no river flooding was

reported across Florida in association with Andrew’s rains, mainly due to the fact that the

heaviest rains fell to the south and east of west-central Florida’s river basins and instead

occurred over the marshlands of the Everglades region. Some localized urban-type flooding did

occur at several locations across south Florida.

In Louisiana, Hurricane Andrew’s rainfall pattern was actually quite similar to past hurricanes

striking the central gulf coast region&that of Hurricane Betsy (Louisiana, September 1965) and

Hurricane Camille (Mississippi, August 1969). In the cases of Hurricanes Betsy and Camille,

the heaviest rains were generally along and to the east of the paths of the hurricanes. Likewise,

based on preliminary data, the heaviest rainfall associated with Hurricane Andrew was also

along and to the right of the path of the hurricane although the rainfall pattern with Hurricane

Andrew was somewhat more widespread than with Betsy and Camille. Additionally, maximum

observed rainfall amounts were also similar for all three hurricanes. The maximum observed

single rainfall from Hurricane Andrew occurred at Hammond, Louisiana, located in Tangipahoa

Parish in east-central Louisiana, where 11.92 inches fell (see appendix E, figure E.2, for

Louisiana rainfall analysis). Also, 9.30 inches of rain was recorded near Sumrall, Mississippi,

located in south-central Mississippi, near Hattiesburg.

Still, despite the heavy rainfall, very little in the way of significant flooding developed in

Louisiana and surrounding states. This was primarily due to the fact that hydrologic conditions

prior to Hurricane Andrew’s arrival were quite dry. Most rivers were at their low, mid-summer

stages, and soils across much of the Lower Mississippi Valley were very dry. As an indication

of the dry conditions, several calculations were done at the NWS’s LMRFC which compared the

volume of rainfall with runoff passing forecast points in both Louisiana and Mississippi. Those

calculations indicated that only 25 percent or less of the volume of rain that fell actually move

into the rivers as runoff. The remaining 75 percent was absorbed by dry soils or plants or it

evaporated. Minor to moderate flooding did develop along portions of several Louisiana and

Mississippi rivers, including the Tangipahoa, Bogue, Tickfaw, Tchefunta, Pearl, Little

Tallahatchie and Tombigbee Rivers. The most spectacular river rise occurred along the

Tangipahoa River at Robert, Louisiana, where a rise of 11 feet in the river stage occurred,

resulting in a crest of 18.8 feet, or 3.8 feet above flood stage. This rise resulted from a

concentrated 8 to 11-inch rainfall associated with one of Andrew’s feeder bands moving across

the Tangipahoa Basin. The flooding inundated some river camps, recreational areas, and

adjacent flood plain farmland, but damages were generally minor. In general, the flooding

across Louisiana and Mississippi could be described as small stream and urban type, causing

the closure of some nearby roads.
10

As the remnants of Hurricane Andrew continued inland and headed northeast, there was

considerable concern within the NWS that copious amounts of rainfall would be deposited across

portions of the Appalachians due to orographic effects. Similar situations have occurred with

other decaying tropical systems, including Camille (1969) and Agnes (1972), the result being

widespread and devastating flooding, coupled with deadly mudslides. However, once the

remnants of Hurricane Andrew made the turn towards the northeast, the system again

accelerated its forward motion, thus limiting the duration of and amount of rainfall. The system

tracked across the Tennessee River Valley, the southern and central Appalachians, and then

through the mid-Atlantic region. While moderate-to-heavy rainfall amounts of generally 2 to

5-inches did fall, flooding was minimal and limited to stream and urban-type flooding.

Along the entire length of the inland path of the remnants of Hurricane Andrew, NWS offices

were sufficiently prepared for a much larger hydrologic impact than actually occurred. NWS

offices were very aggressive in their treatment of the decaying tropical system and were very

cognizant of the potential for excessive rainfall and subsequent flooding.

Storm Surge

In Florida, Andrew caused a storm tide that reached a maximum of 16.9 feet a few miles north

of Homestead AFB, a record for storms in southeastern Florida. Fortunately, the maximum

surge hit a portion of the coastline not as heavily populated as numerous nearby communities.

Also, Cutler Ridge, a topographic rise of between 8 and 24 feet mean sea level (MSL) caused by

an ancient coral reef, blocked inland progression of the storm surge.

In Louisiana, the highest storm surge mark was recorded at Luke’s Landing along East Cote

Blanche Bay, where 8.2 feet was observed at a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) water

level gauge. Several other gauges recorded surge heights over 6 feet during Andrew. Lake

Pontchartrain was raised to a level of approximately 4.5 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical

Datum). Fortunately, these surge heights occurred shortly before the occurrence of normal

(astronomical) high tide. In the area impacted by Andrew, this would have added about 1 foot

to the observed readings. Tidal traces indicate that prior to Andrew’s landfall, water was being

forced away from the coastline by offshore winds, resulting in depressed water levels (below

MSL). As the eye passed and the winds shifted to onshore, water levels rose rapidly and reached

their observed peaks.

Impact on Fisheries and Wildlife

Louisiana’s legendary fisheries received a severe blow when Andrew slid along the Louisiana

coast before making landfall. While the numbers of marine fishes killed did not expect to impact

greatly the coastal recreational fishing, biologists estimate conservatively that the coastal sports

industry will have suffered a loss of $12 million during September and October of 1992.

Louisiana’s marine recreational fishing industry depends on the accessibility to coastal waters

and the availability of marine facilities. These have both suffered greatly due to the effects of

Andrew. (Specific details can be found in appendix E.) 
11

Impact on the Petroleum Industry

The petroleum industry plays a large role in the economy of Louisiana. The gulf coast from

Texas to Mississippi is dotted by numerous submerged wells and oil well structures (platforms),

including appurtenances, such as satellite wells and oil pipes. The largest concentration of oil

platforms, satellites, and drilling rigs are located off the Louisiana coast. The total number of

oil platforms and satellites is approximately 3,800, with about 150 oil drilling rigs. These

facilities are extremely vulnerable to hurricanes. Their destruction poses a major threat to the

ecology of the gulf.

Best estimates bring the total losses from the repair of damaged equipment, replacement of

equipment, and clean-up costs to exceed $250 million.

Commercial and Recreational Boating

In Florida, the ferocity of Andrew from Dinner Key to Coconut Grove south was such that when

boats landed they were sunk, holed, or left full of oil, mud, or seaweed. Estimates are that one

third of the 45,000 registered boats in Dade County, Florida, were damaged. Nearly 20 percent

of these were total losses. Damage estimates to boats are as high as $250 million, more than

twice the dollar losses from Hurricanes Bob and Hugo combined, and could reach $500 million.

Hardest hit areas were Key Biscayne and Coral Gables. On Florida’s west coast, minor damage

was reported, except for two marinas on Marco Island that were hit hard as Andrew exited into

the gulf.

Andrew affected an unknown number of commercial ships, recreational vessels, and barges

throughout the Mississippi basin and the northern gulf coast. Documentation as provided by

U.S. Coast Guard, District Eight, revealed that a number of ships were lost, and rescue efforts

had to be conducted.

Louisiana fared much better than south Florida since Andrew missed the major boating areas

north and east of New Orleans. Many boat owners also had enough advance warning and

moved their vessels out of the path of the storm up into one of Louisiana’s many bayous, where

they had more protection. To date, no formal estimate of monetary loss has been computed for

commercial and recreational marine interests as the result of Hurricane Andrew.
12

Naranja Lakes homes destroyed by Andrew’s devastating winds.

A combination of hurricane-force winds and storm surge dragged this sailboat

well inland. This photo was taken south of Homestead AFB.
13

PART I:

SOUTH FLORIDA
14

A piece of wind-driven plywood piercing the trunk of a royal palm near

Homestead, Florida.
15

CHAPTER I.A

BACKGROUND

Description of the Disaster Area

Florida is largely a lowland peninsula comprising 54,100 square miles of surface area bounded

on three sides by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Numerous shallow lakes account

for approximately 4,400 square miles of additional inland water area. No point in the state is

more than 70 miles from salt water, and the highest natural land elevation is only 345 feet

above sea level. Elevations in south Florida are even lower; natural elevations over 20 feet are

rare. Coastal areas are low and flat and are indented by many small bays and inlets. Countless

barrier islands are scattered along Florida’s shoreline.

The region most affected by the passage of Hurricane Andrew was located in the extreme

southern section of the state. The counties most affected were Broward, Dade, Monroe, and

Collier. This "tip of Florida" includes the Everglades National Park, a sparsely populated region

to the southwest, and the more populated areas to the east. The chain of islands, known as the

Florida Keys, extends along the eastern seaboard from Miami southwest to Key West. The four

counties affected encompass the Florida Keys, the Everglades National Park, the Big Cypress

National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, Bill Baggs

Cape Florida State Park, the Miccosukee Indian Reservation, a portion of the Big Cypress

Seminole Indian Reservation, and the cities of Naples, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Homestead, and

Florida City. 

Population

The State of Florida has experienced tremendous population growth over the past 4 decades.

With 12.9 million persons in the state in 1990, Florida has grown from the Nation’s 20th most

populated state in 1950 to the fourth most populated state. Dade County, where Hurricane

Andrew struck the hardest, is Florida’s most populated county. In 1980, the population of Dade

County exceeded that of sixteen states and the District of Columbia. The sheer number of

residents, coupled with the annual summer influx of tourists, enhance the potential for disaster.

Climate

The climate of south Florida is characterized as subtropical marine in Broward, Collier, Dade,

and mainland Monroe Counties, and tropical maritime in the Keys. The region is strongly

influenced by the adjacent marine environment. The Florida current, which becomes the Gulf

Stream, affects the climate of the region. The Gulf Stream runs parallel to the east coast at an

average distance of 3 miles, helping to maintain the tropical and subtropical regimes. 
16

South Florida experiences two seasons&rainy from May to October and dry from November to

April. During the rainy season, precipitation averages 6.24 inches a month. The dry season

averages 1.97 inches a month. The rainy season coincides with the hurricane season. 

Topography

The region is essentially a flat, low-lying limestone plain. Elevations are typically highest along

the coastal ridge, which extends in a north-south direction several miles inland from the Atlantic

Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. The highest point in the region is 53 ft. above MSL. To the west

of the coastal ridge, elevations gradually decrease to just slightly above sea level in the

Everglades Basin. To the east of the ridge, elevations decrease as well, sloping down gradually

to Biscayne Bay and other estuaries. Because of its low elevations, south Florida is particularly

vulnerable to the hurricane threat.

The Intracoastal Waterway traverses the length of Dade and Broward Counties as a series of

bays and channels. A continuous series of barrier islands east of the Intracoastal Waterway

separates much of the mainland peninsula from the Atlantic Ocean. The coastal barrier islands

are typically long and narrow with low elevations. The Florida Keys are an archipelago that

sweeps for more than 100 miles in a southwesterly direction from Dade County. The islands of

the Keys are composed of fossilized coral and limestone foundations. Elevations in the Florida

Keys are rarely greater than 10 feet above MSL.

Hurricane Vulnerability

Hurricane activity in the southern peninsula of Florida has a long and varied history. Based

on information gathered from NHC, the first hurricane to affect this area this century was a

category 1, making landfall on September 11, 1903. In the intervening years, an additional 27

hurricanes have affected the south Florida region. Hurricane Andrew, the most costly of all

natural disasters in United States history (approximately $25 billion) is the 28th hurricane.

While Hurricane Andrew has had a profound effect on south Florida, the same was said of a

number of past hurricanes. The hurricane of 1928, a category 4, made landfall around Palm

Beach and then moved across Lake Okeechobee, driving all the water to one side of the lake.

This, in combination with normal storm precipitation, resulted in flooding which took 1,836

lives. This 1928 hurricane is considered the most catastrophic for Florida in regard to total lives

lost. A dike was constructed around the lake as a result of this hurricane, protecting nearby

communities from all but the most intense hurricanes. 

The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, a category 5 that struck the Florida Keys, resulted in the loss

of 408 lives and $50 million in damage. The storm surge with that hurricane piled water to a

height of 20 feet in some portions of the Keys. 

In September of 1960, Hurricane Donna crossed the Florida Keys and then moved

northeastward across the state from the Fort Myers area to near Daytona Beach. Although not

the deadliest, it is thought to be financially the most destructive hurricane ever experienced in

south Florida prior to Andrew, causing an estimated $305 million in damages. Donna claimed

13 lives in Florida.
17

The vulnerability of the state to hurricanes varies with the progress of the hurricane season.

Early and late in the season (June and October) hurricane activity predominates in the Gulf of

Mexico and the western Caribbean. Most of those systems that affect Florida approach the state

from the south or southwest, entering the Keys or along the west coast. Mid-season (August and

most of September) tropical cyclones normally approach the state from the east or southeast.

Other relevant statistics which reflect Florida’s hurricane vulnerability and disaster history

have been collected by NHC.

 More than one in three of this century’s major United States landfalling hurricanes,

those with winds above 110 mph (categories 3, 4, and 5), have struck Florida.

 Florida’s hurricanes are among the most intense&of the 17 United States landfalling

category 4 and 5 hurricanes since 1900, 5 of the 7 most intense affected Florida. 

 September has been Florida’s cruelest month. Twenty-three storms, 41 percent of the

total Florida landfalls, have struck during the month. Fourteen struck during the first

2 weeks of September alone. October trails with 17 landfalls. The Atlantic and Gulf of

Mexico reach their warmest temperatures during September and October, providing

more moisture and energy to power developing storms.

 Nearly half of all Florida hurricanes this century have struck between 1920 and 1950.

In the 1940s, Florida recorded ten hurricanes. The last major hurricane to strike south

Florida before Andrew was Hurricane Betsy&27 years ago. Only seven have struck

since 1970. The last, Hurricane Floyd, was a mild storm that struck the Florida Keys

in 1987. 

The extent to which Florida coastal areas have been developed, coupled with the frequency with

which hurricanes have impacted, suggests that a disaster of unprecedented magnitude was

inevitable.
18

Levitz furniture warehouse, west of Whispering Pines, Florida, shows extensive wind

damage.
19

CHAPTER I.B

SUMMARY OF PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS

To assure timely and appropriate public response to hazardous weather events, a communitywide hazardous weather preparedness program is necessary. Such a program requires years

to develop. Foundations of communication, understanding, education, and skills development

are necessary for interagency coordination. The focal point of that effort usually is the NWS

local office. The NWS office generally is the instigator of coordination and communication

among Federal, state, local, and volunteer organizations involved directly with distribution and

dissemination of weather information. The NWS is responsible for assuring that people involved

in that process, including the public, possess an appropriate knowledge of weather hazards. To

be successful, all involved agencies must provide continued support to the effort. The following

summarizes that level of involvement among the principal members of the hazards community.

Weather Service Forecast Offices/Weather Service Offices 

(WSFO/WSO)

WSO Melbourne

The WCM at WSO Melbourne has spearheaded comprehensive preparedness and educational

programs with major emphasis on hurricanes and the modern technologies to deal with them.

These programs touched a wide variety of weather information users in the Melbourne area of

responsibility. For example, the WCM gave a hurricane awareness presentation to the Annual

Convention of Transportation Maintenance Engineers. In early June, he spoke at the Daytona

Beach Hurricane Conference attended by over 200 people. He also developed customized

hurricane scenarios for use in drills by county officials and water management districts. Other

preparedness activities included presentations or meetings with numerous schools, aviation

groups, a marine association, the American Red Cross, and many media outlets.

WSO West Palm Beach

On the Thursday before Hurricane Andrew reached Florida, the WSO West Palm Beach

Meteorologist in Charge (MIC) gave a detailed hurricane preparedness presentation to amateur

radio operators and emergency managers from Palm Beach, St. Lucie, and Martin Counties.

A category 5 hurricane scenario was discussed. On August 10, a similar presentation was given

to emergency managers, the American Red Cross, and the Florida Power and Light officials at

Ft. Pierce. WSO West Palm Beach also worked with the Palm Beach Emergency Operations

Center at a preparedness meeting in May 1992, covering such topics as storm surge, hurricane

strike probabilities, and evacuation lead time related to storm category. Earlier in the year,

WSO West Palm Beach participated in hurricane drills coordinated by WSFO Miami. Finally,

WSO West Palm Beach provided preparedness talks at schools, local municipalities, agricultural

and marine associations, civic groups, and supplied radio/television interviews.
20

WSO Tampa Bay

WSO Tampa Bay maintained an aggressive hurricane preparedness program during 1992 for

their county warning area (CWA). That large area includes Fort Myers and the responsibility

for the old WSO Fort Myers CWA. During the winter of 1991-92, the WSO Tampa Bay MIC

attended three hurricane planning/preparedness sessions of the Southwest Florida Regional

Planning Council. On April 14, 1992, the MIC and his staff hosted a workshop at WSO Tampa

Bay for emergency management officials, representing Sarasota, Lee, and Charlotte Counties,

and a representative from WBBH-TV in Fort Myers, to explain the functions and services of

WSO Tampa Bay and WSO Fort Myers during hurricanes.

WSO Tampa Bay was involved in three meetings with area radio stations during the spring, the

purpose of which was to strengthen the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS). Five meetings

were held with amateur radio groups within WSO Tampa Bay’s CWA to coordinate

communications and train storm spotters.

A planning session for a newspaper hurricane supplement for the St. Petersburg Times was

attended by the WSO Tampa Bay MIC. In attendance were representatives from the

newspaper, the American Red Cross, the Florida Power Company, and Citrus, Hernando, Pasco,

Manatee, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties. Other activities included preparedness talks to

various business/civic groups and radio interviews. 

On March 19, 1992, the MIC briefed the Manatee County Division of Public Safety on hurricane

preparedness. On April 7, 1992, the MIC and Lee County emergency management officials gave

a hurricane preparedness seminar to the Sanibel Island Condominium Association. On April

20, 1992, the MIC briefed the USCG Search and Rescue Office on NWR and provided them with

a Bearcat Weather Radio. On May 21-22, 1992, the NOAA WP-3 aircraft was used for a static

display at Clearwater/St. Petersburg and Sarasota/Bradenton airports. Over 700 people

attended. On May 28, three hurricane preparedness seminars were given in Charlotte County

to over 1,600 new residents. On June 4-5, 1992, the Florida Governor’s Hurricane Conference

was held in Tampa. The Area Manager and MICs from WSO Tallahassee, WSO Melbourne, and

WSO Tampa Bay gave presentations and answered questions on the WSO/WSFO role both now

and in the future in regards to hurricanes.

WSO Key West

The WSO Key West MIC performed several hurricane preparedness presentations in the spring

and summer of 1992. One such presentation was made to a local Catholic elementary school

and another was to the local public high school. Still another presentation was given to 380

local Coast Guard personnel and their dependents.

Regular contacts were made between the WSO Key West MIC and the Monroe County

emergency management director during the summer updating of the county’s absolutely vital

hurricane evacuation plan. 
21

WSFO Miami

WSFO Miami complements the NHC preparedness program (see below) with additional outreach

activities and oversees the preparedness programs of the Florida WSOs. Finding I.B.1: The

NHC is charged with a national focus on hurricane readiness, but it dominates the

NWS hurricane preparedness program in south Florida. Dr. Sheets and the WSFO have

agreed that only one voice representing the NWS be utilized in preparedness programs over

south Florida. This assures that no mixed message is presented. Very little media attention

is given to the WSFO in a preparedness context; both print and electronic media focus their

attention on the NHC. Still, during 1992, WSFO staff conducted eight hurricane and severe

weather preparedness programs across their county warning area, three of which were done

with storm spotters. These were accomplished by the MIC, the Deputy MIC, and the Storm

Data focal point. There is no dedicated Warning Preparedness Meteorologist (WPM) at WSFO

Miami. In addition, Area Manager Paul Hebert accompanied Dr. Sheets on the annual

hurricane preparedness (WP-3 Reconnaissance Aircraft) tour in late May. Recommendation

I.B.1: The NWS should staff WSFO Miami with a Warning Coordination Meteorologist

(WCM) as soon as possible to enhance the WSFO’s preparedness/hazard awareness

program. 

National Hurricane Center

The NHC Director and his staff are traditionally involved in a heavy schedule of pre-hurricane

season preparedness activities. These are aimed at sensitizing decision makers, special interest

groups, and the general public to the dangers of a hurricane. In recent years, the NHC has

sponsored the popular and highly effective tour by the NOAA WP-3 Reconnaissance Aircraft at

many coastal sites along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. These tours are usually combined

with meetings emphasizing public awareness of hurricane dangers and the NOAA operations

to counteract these hazards. The 1992 tour visited sites along the gulf coast. The meetings used

a "Town Hall" format, involving the general public and vendors of hurricane preparedness

supplies. Often featured were displays set up by the American Red Cross, emergency medical

services, the military, law enforcement groups, emergency management, and the media.

The NHC director, deputy director, and other staff members participate in a Speakers’ Bureau

comprised of many NOAA professionals. Members of the Bureau are engaged in a variety of

outreach activities focusing on hurricane preparedness. These include presentations to schools,

career programs, numerous media interviews, workshops for public officials, and talks to special

interests, such as hospitals and insurance groups. In 1992, similar interviews were conducted

with local Miami media, and several programs were given by NHC staff at various civic

meetings.

Annually, the NHC, in association with FEMA and state emergency management agencies,

conducts hurricane awareness training at the NHC. The training is for emergency managers

and their staff and includes information on how to use and interpret SLOSH data, the basics of

how the NHC tracks and forecasts hurricanes, and elements of the public hurricane watch and

warning program. Emergency managers from each of the affected Florida counties have

received this training during the past few years.
22

Increased Preparedness Through Improved and Integrated Facilities

The NHC and WSFO Miami were extremely fortunate that they were able to continue many

critical services during the hurricane, despite some power outages and communications failures.

Finding I.B.2: This was the first time that the NHC (and the collocated WSFO Miami)

facility had been directly affected by a major hurricane. The impact of Andrew

proved the vulnerability of NHC to the effects of extreme wind. Recommendation

I.B.2: Better protected, self-contained facilities should be provided to the NHC and

all NWS coastal offices. This is even more critical to National Centers, such as NHC,

for which full backup procedures are extremely difficult to implement. Such a facility

should have an independent air-conditioning system and other stand-alone utilities. In addition

to offering a safer working environment for the staff during a major storm, this would increase

the chances for proper cooling of computers and uninterrupted communications. Of course,

backup procedures should be in place to allow other NWS units to take over if necessary.

Feedback from the public, the media, and many other interests indicates that there is a

psychological boost in knowing that the NHC is still functioning during such a major storm.

Local Emergency Management

During the last two major hurricanes in the United States, the storm surge threat has been

adequately addressed by the hazards community and understood by the public. This is due

largely to the great emphasis on the dangers of the storm surge and the success of the SLOSH

computer models to predict the surge. To address that threat, evacuation studies have been

accomplished throughout the Florida coast, jointly by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) and FEMA, in coordination with state and local emergency management.

Annually, state and local emergency management, in coordination with the NWS, conduct a

statewide preparedness drill. This drill is done during the NWS Hazardous Weather Awareness

Week in the spring.

Finding I.B.3: Hurricane Andrew was characterized by devastating effects of strong

inland winds in addition to powerful storm surges. The devastation that eventually

occurred over south Florida heightened the awareness in other vulnerable areas to

the significant inland wind damage which can accompany a hurricane.

Recommendation I.B.3: The NWS should provide technical assistance for a much

more concerted preparedness and awareness effort by state and local emergency

management and such other cognizant organizations as state coastal zone

management agencies in areas of high vulnerability.

Refuge of Last Resort

In an attempt to prepare better for these hazards in future storms, the NHC and emergency

managers want to consider a concept called the "refuge of last resort."

Finding I.B.4: Since the lead time for evacuation may be no more than 24 hours, it

may not be practical or even possible to evacuate all inland residents in the path of
23

a hurricane eyewall. Recommendation I.B.4: The NWS should work with FEMA,

state, and local emergency planners in exploring the potential of developing a "refuge

of last resort" methodology, as appropriate, for occasions when critical saturation

points are reached in the flow of evacuation traffic. Local emergency planners could

invoke this last refuge concept once a critical saturation point is reached in the flow of

evacuation traffic. Otherwise, the evacuation traffic pattern could lead to the infamous

"gridlock" where evacuees are trapped on the road while attempting to flee a hurricane. 

It is better to get out of an area subject to hurricane winds or at least be protected by a

substantially built structure; but if this isn’t possible, a local refuge center should be available.

Furthermore, consider the scenario where warning lead time is drastically cut due to an

unforeseen change in the forward speed, direction, or intensity of a storm. In such cases, many

residents may be prematurely cut off from evacuation routes, and a designated "refuge of last

resort" would be essential.

Preparedness by the Media

Television’s role in preseason specials and spot announcements helped to educate the citizenry

in the appropriate responses to the hurricane threat. Local newspapers in the Keys, Miami,

Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach featured preseason special editions and covered the

storm’s advance in the Sunday editions. Also, they provided safety advice and shelter openings

that enhanced the public’s evacuation. Newspaper coverage at the NHC also was provided by

the Associated Press (AP), United Press International (UPI), USA Today, the Los Angeles

Times, and several regional news outlets. Both English and Spanish language newspapers and

electronic media provided accurate and timely information to the large non-English speaking

south Florida community. 

Through the past few years, the NHC has entered into a partnership with the broadcasters to

enable all members of the television media to provide threatened residents of the Atlantic and

gulf coasts with live, up-to-the-minute reports directly from the NHC. The noncompetitive pool

coverage is divided into local, regional, and network pools when a tropical storm or hurricane

threatens a particular area.
24

Aerial view of Cutler Ridge, Florida, on the right and adjacent subdivision with

obviously superior construction. 
25

CHAPTER I.C

NWS CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND

BACKUP ARRANGEMENTS

Weather Service Forecast Offices/Weather Service Offices 

(WSFO/WSO)

WSO Melbourne

WSO Melbourne took specific actions to respond operationally for the hurricane. On Friday,

August 21, the WSR-88D was taken down for maintenance to a potential diode stack and

voltage problem. WSO Melbourne coordinated with NWS Southern Region Headquarters (SRH)

and the Operational Support Facility (OSF) in Norman, Oklahoma, to secure extra parts and

to deploy a Westinghouse technician to help with the problem. This turned out to be a critically

important decision since it enabled the WSR-88D to operate smoothly and provide radar

coverage of the hurricane after the Miami radar failed.

WSO Key West

WSO Key West coordinated with NWS Southern Region Meteorological Services Division and

WSFO Miami regarding staffing. It was determined that the WSO was adequately staffed, and

no supplemental staffing was provided for the event.

WSO West Palm Beach

In support of the potential threat from Andrew, the WSO West Palm Beach staff was augmented

by meteorological technicians from WSOs Corpus Christi and Lake Charles. In addition,

procedures and instructions from NWS SRH dictated that WSO West Palm Beach was to

assume network radar responsibility and county warning responsibility for Dade and Broward

Counties prior to Andrew’s landfall.

WSO Tampa Bay

WSO Tampa Bay, in cooperation with NWS SRH and the Lee County Emergency Management

Agency, temporarily reassigned operational staff to open WSO Fort Myers. The Fort Myers

WSO is routinely operated at the Lee County EOC during periods of hurricane threat. 

WSFO Miami

Backup Procedures. The WSFO, in accordance with procedures established by NWS SRH,

invoked emergency backup procedures as Hurricane Andrew bore down on south Florida. In

anticipation of the potential for complete failure of the WSFO, WSFOs Atlanta and Sterling

were assigned public/aviation and marine forecast responsibilities for Miami’s forecast area,
26

respectively. Exact times when the hand-offs were accomplished is not certain, but WSFO

Atlanta was on standby or actually doing Miami’s public and aviation forecasts from 5 AM,

August 24, through 6 PM, August 25 (all times EDT). WSFO Sterling performed the same

function with Miami’s marine forecasts during the same period. Just prior to landfall, warning

responsibility for WSFO Miami’s five-county warning area was assigned (mistakenly) to WSO

Tampa Bay. At mid-morning of August 24, Dade and Broward Counties were reassigned to

WSO West Palm Beach. WSFO Miami resumed county warning responsibility at noon August

31. Prior to that time, the area manager did not feel the forecast office had sufficient personnel

and data collecting capability to handle warning responsibility.

Southern Region Headquarters, Fort Worth, Texas

Well in advance of the hurricane season and any hurricane, SRH on April 23, 1992, reviewed

the Region’s Hurricane Readiness Plan. Staffing and equipment status for all coastal offices was

reviewed. Contingency plans were made for detailing staff in the event of a hurricane threat.

During the week of August 16, the progress of the tropical depression (which would become

Andrew) was monitored. On Friday, August 21, a meeting was held at SRH to assess the

situation (Andrew was tropical storm strength at the time). The support staff were identified

and alerted for possible dispatch during the weekend.

The Southern Region Hurricane Watch Office opened at 4 PM Central Daylight Time (CDT) on

August 22, and then maintained 24-hour-a-day operations until the hurricane was well inland

on August 26. On Sunday, August 23, when it became evident that the main threat was the

Miami area, contingency plans for south Florida were initiated. 

National Hurricane Center

NHC Backup Procedures

Since the NHC is located in Miami, Florida, it is occasionally in harm’s way when hurricanes

approach the Florida coastline. The NHC has emergency backup procedures that are

implemented when a storm threatens the NHC. These procedures were implemented when

Hurricane Andrew approached Miami. Five backup personnel from NHC were sent to the NMC

on August 23. Their immediate task was to take over dissemination of several NHC aviation

and marine forecast products, allowing NHC to focus on the primary forecast mission. The other

main task of the backup team was to take over as the primary hurricane forecast center should

NHC become unable to maintain operations due to the effects of the storm.

Hurricane Andrew provided a severe test of the backup system. As a category 4 storm, it

severely affected NHC, and then it moved quickly into the Gulf of Mexico threatening other

portions of the United States coastline. Throughout the event, NHC remained operational due

largely to the valiant efforts of NHC personnel who stayed at their posts and managed to keep

their computer and communications systems functional despite wind damage and loss of crucial

air-conditioning systems. Finding I.C.1: The detailing of two hurricane specialists to the

National Meteorological Center (NMC) is not sufficient to provide adequate
27

continuous backup to NHC operations. Recommendation I.C.1: The NWS should

adopt a plan that would increase the number of forecasters capable of acting as

hurricane specialists during an emergency brought on by a hurricane threatening

NHC. There must be adequate staffing at both NHC and the backup site. One plan

would be to provide hurricane forecast training to a select group of forecasters,

possibly from NMC, who could fly to NHC as replacements for hurricane specialists

dispatched to staff the backup center. The backup functions at NMC were executed

without significant mishaps although several procedural changes are being implemented to

update the backup plan. 

Two of the personnel sent from NHC to NMC were hurricane specialists (Jerry Jarrell and Miles

Lawrence). This left NHC understaffed, particularly since the storm remained a major forecast

problem days after its landfall in south Florida. Finding I.C.2: When NHC staff is drawn

down to implement the backup at NMC, insufficient staff remains at NHC to handle

advisories of multiple tropical cyclones properly. Recommendation I.C.2: See

Recommendation I.C.1. This normally will be the case for hurricanes striking Miami so the

backup plan should be amended if possible to keep NHC at full strength. The problem would

have been much worse had there been other hurricanes active at the same time. (As many as

six were active simultaneously during September 1992. According to NHC administrative staff,

they could not have handled the extreme workload of six tropical cyclones with two forecasters

detailed to NMC.) Further, two hurricane specialists are not enough to staff the backup center

in the event that it should have to take over the primary forecast mission. One specialist would

be busy essentially full time dealing with the media, leaving only one person to handle the

actual forecasting. During Andrew, a third experienced hurricane forecaster was brought in to

NMC, and another former NHC forecaster was on standby.

Finding I.C.3: Facilities for interacting with the media are very limited at NMC.

Recommendation I.C.3: The NMC should formulate a plan for handling the extensive

interactions with the media that are required when a hurricane is threatening the

United States coastline. Since NMC is the logical site for the backup forecast center,

plans should be made to accommodate the large number of media personnel who will

descend upon the backup center, especially if it is required to take over the primary

forecast mission.
28
29

CHAPTER I.D

SUMMARY OF NWS WATCHES, WARNINGS,

AND ADVISORIES

National Hurricane Center

Products

NHC disseminates information about specific tropical weather systems through three basic

products: the Tropical Cyclone Public Advisory (TCP), the Tropical Cyclone Marine Advisory

(TCM), and the Tropical Cyclone Discussion (TCD). These products supply data about storm

location, intensity, trends, and forecasts. Hurricane and tropical storm warnings and watches

are issued through these products. The TCP is the least technical, being a public advisory, but

it is the most lengthy. Probability forecasts for landfall appear at the end of the TCP and TCM.

TCMs are designed to supply a mixture of technical and non-technical information to users who

are primarily in the marine and emergency management communities. The TCM features

initial and forecast positions, wind radii for the storm out to 72 hours, and a very brief mention

of current trends. The TCD is a technical discussion the audience of which includes the

sophisticated users, such as the NWS, the private consultants, the emergency management

community, and other technical concerns. The TCD describes storm characteristics and

controlling factors. 

TCPs, TCMs, and TCDs are disseminated concurrently at 6-hour intervals. Additional

intermediate TCPs are issued at either 2- or 3-hour intervals when land is threatened. Those

TCPs are not accompanied by TCMs or TCDs. Special information about a tropical system may

be described by a tropical cyclone update (TCU). The TCU is useful for passing along

information about changes to the storm system, such as the formation of an eye, a location

change, or a change in intensity. Special advisories and other products also may be issued by

the NHC.

The tropical disturbance that eventually became Andrew was first treated by an advisory at 11

PM EDT, August 16. Forty-seven advisories, along with intermediate advisories beginning on

August 22, were used to describe the system.

Watches and Warnings

A hurricane watch is issued when NHC determines that a coastal area is at risk of hurricane

conditions within 36 hours. A hurricane watch was issued in Advisory Number 24 for coastal

Florida at 5 PM EDT, August 22. The watch extended from Titusville on the Atlantic coast

southward through the Florida Keys to include the Dry Tortugas. A hurricane warning is issued

when the NHC determines that hurricane conditions are likely along a coastal area within 24

hours. The hurricane warning for Florida was issued at 8 AM EDT, Sunday, August 23, and

extended from Vero Beach south through the Florida Keys. At the same time, a hurricane

watch was issued for the Florida west coast, from just north of Bayport to north of Flamingo.
30

This included the Tampa Bay area. At the time the hurricane warning was issued, a tropical

storm warning/hurricane watch was issued that bounded the hurricane warning area (the

tropical storm warning included only the Florida east coast from Titusville south to Vero Beach).

A comprehensive listing of all watches and warnings is provided in appendix A as table A.6.

Watch and Warning Lead Times

A critical aspect of the value of hurricane/tropical storm watches and warnings is the amount

of time people have to respond to the oncoming threat. Lead time is defined as the time between

watch or warning issuance and the onset of hurricane conditions. Sufficient lead time is very

important for a timely and orderly evacuation. NHC’s goal for lead time for hurricane watches

is 36 hours (slightly less from watch to onset of hurricane winds). In south Florida, the time

between watch and the time that hurricane-force winds arrived was 36 hours. The average lead

time for a hurricane warning is 19.5 hours, and southeast Florida received the warning 21 hours

before hurricane-force winds (see figure 5). 

Finding I.D.1: NHC watch and warning lead times during Hurricane Andrew were

longer than average for landfalling hurricanes. That extra margin of safety was at

least partially responsible for allowing hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate

safely from south Florida. Recommendation I.D.1: NOAA and the NWS should work

toward increasing watch/warning lead times by supporting efforts to enhance our

understanding of tropical systems, improving numerical models, providing greater

data availability to feed the models, and enhancing operational forecast

methodologies. A significant step in this direction would be the collocation of the

Environmental Research Laboratory’s Hurricane Research Division (HRD) with NHC

to allow for the synergism of research and operations.

Utility of Advisories

Content of the advisories is as important to their value as timing and frequency of issuance. The

manner in which they are written and the emphasis on certain forecast parameters reflect on

NHC’s impression of the hazard. It is very important to the way the users perceive the threat.

NHC advisories were well worded from Andrew’s development through its trek across south

Florida. When the storm was being sheared by strong southwesterly upper winds and its future

intensification and track was uncertain, those uncertainties were reflected in the advisories. As

the storm became very strong, comments highlighted that threat and warned of specific

phenomena within the storm’s domain. For example, in the hours preceding the south Florida

impact, Andrew was referred to as "extremely dangerous," and specific references about storm

surges of 10 to 14 feet were provided. Additionally, forecast rainfall totals of between 5 and 8

inches were cited. Although no tornadoes were observed in south Florida, that threat also was

noted.
31

Figure 5 & Hurricane Andrew watch/warning lead times.
32

National Meteorological Center

NMC is responsible for generating and interpreting forecast models on the synoptic and subsynoptic scales. They coordinate routinely with NHC via the hurricane hotline during periods

of tropical cyclone threat. A number of other entities also contribute to that coordination effort,

including the United States Navy in Norfolk, NWS Southern Region and Eastern Region

Headquarters, selected NWS forecast offices, various state agencies, and Weather Service

Headquarters. During the coordination calls which take place approximately 1 hour prior to the

issuance of NHC advisories, NHC reviews its forecast reasoning and announces its forecast

positions. NMC also generates forecast positions and shares their thinking at this time. The

final authority on the forecast belongs to NHC.

Once Andrew moved away from inhibiting factors, it was well behaved and tracked consistently.

Except for the period of storm shearing when Andrew nearly died, there was little difference in

forecast tracks between NHC and NMC. 

National Severe Storms Forecast Center (NSSFC)

Guidance Products

NSSFC has the primary responsibility to issue guidance and watches for severe local storms in

the continental United States. Tropical cyclones often generate conditions which favor severe

local storms (especially tornadoes) in addition to their tropical characteristics of high wind,

heavy rainfall, and storm surge. When a tropical cyclone threatens NSSFC’s area of

responsibility, its effects are integrated into their forecast reasoning.

Severe weather forecast guidance products from NSSFC are generated by the Severe Local

Storms (SELS) Branch. SELS provides 24-hour (SWODY1) and 48-hour (SWODY2) severe

weather outlooks. Both products are provided in narrative and graphic format. The day-one

outlooks detail the risk of severe weather as:

APCHG & approaching severe storm criteria

SLGHT & slight risk of severe storms

MDT & moderate risk of severe storms

HIGH & high risk of severe storms.

The SWODY2 outlook provides only the area of severe weather threat. Beginning August 22,

SELS began mentioning south Florida as an area of severe weather threat. The SWODY2

outlook narrative issued at 2 PM EDT, August 22, introduced a chance for severe weather across

south Florida in the latter half of the valid period which would have been between 8 PM EDT,

August 23, and 8 AM EDT, August 24. The threat was based on approaching outer spiral bands

in the right front quadrant of the hurricane. As the storm continued to approach south Florida,

its potential effects were addressed by the SWODY1 guidance. The SWODY1 issued at 1 AM

EDT, August 23, included a slight risk over south Florida. The outlook was based on a

destabilizing airmass and surface convergence ahead of Andrew. Updates issued at 11 AM EDT

and 2 PM EDT on August 23 reiterated the slight risk, citing increasing low level wind shear

in the climatologically favored northeast quadrant of the storm. The 11 AM EDT, August 23,
33

outlook stated that the primary threat would be for a few tornadoes, and that the biggest threat

would be after 11 PM EDT on August 23. Subsequent outlooks noted that Andrew was moving

across south Florida and mentioned some tornado threat lingering until the rain bands moved

offshore midday on August 25. SELS then began focusing on the northern Gulf of Mexico coast.

SELS also generates discussion products on an as-needed basis. The products, called SWOMCD

(mesoscale convective discussions), give insight about convective trends during the past 2 hours

and for the forthcoming 2- to 4-hour period. As Hurricane Andrew approached south Florida,

SELS provided a detailed evaluation of convective trends and severe thunderstorm potential.

At 8:59 PM EDT, a SWOMCD indicated that one spiral band was moving onshore in east-central

Florida and that another was 40-50 miles offshore and would cross the coast around 11 PM

EDT. SELS, in coordination with NHC, noted that a severe weather watch would be issued with

the 11 PM EDT, August 23, hurricane advisory. Another mesoscale discussion was issued at

6:31 PM EDT on August 24 as Andrew moved into the Gulf of Mexico. The 6:31 PM EDT

issuance targeted the Florida Panhandle as prime for damaging thunderstorm winds due to a

line of thunderstorms with forward motion around 50 knots.

Severe Weather Watches

Watches that advise of the potential for severe thunderstorms or tornadoes also are the

responsibility of SELS. When conditions favor severe thunderstorms possessing hail at least

3/4-inch in diameter or wind gusts at least 50 knots (58 mph), SELS will issue a severe

thunderstorm watch for the favored area. Should the potential also include tornadoes, a tornado

watch will be issued instead. As Andrew approached south Florida, Tornado Watch No. 763 was

issued at 9:56 PM EDT, August 23. The watch was for that part of the state along and 70

statute miles either side of a line from 15 miles west of Avon Park to 50 miles south-southeast

of Miami. The watch was valid from 11 PM EDT, August 23, through 11 AM EDT, August 24.

It is unusual for a severe storm watch to be valid for more than 6 hours. In this situation,

however, the lengthy watch made physical sense due to the protracted hurricane conditions.

Those conditions included the outer rain band approach, the passage of the storm core, and the

trailing rain band passage. As the first watch expired, Tornado Watch No. 764 issued at 10:11

AM EDT, August 24, took its place. It shifted the area slightly further west, i.e., 80 statute

miles either side of a line from 30 miles north-northwest of Avon Park to 70 miles southwest of

Miami. It was valid until 8 PM EDT on August 24.

Status Reports

While severe weather watches are in effect, SELS provides status reports (product WWAMKC)

to inform about trends. A number of status reports were provided while the tornado watches

were in effect over south Florida. The principal concern was of mesocyclones in the spiral bands.

As a band of convection approached the coast at 12:46 AM EDT on August 24, SELS used a

WWAMKC to describe the details about timing and location. Specific mention of recent

observations in the WWAMKC of 1:12 AM EDT, August 24, i.e., "PBI ERYR HAD HVY TSTM

Q49..." (contraction for "West Palm Beach Airport earlier had heavy thunderstorm with squall

to 49 knots"), supply excellent detail to emergency management and media about severe

weather potential.
34

Hurricane Andrew produced no known tornadoes as it moved across south Florida. There have

been unsubstantiated reports about tornado-like vortices within the eyewall based on post-event

aerial surveys of damage. 

Weather Service Forecast Offices/Weather Service Offices

(WSFO/WSO)

Hurricane Local Statements (HLS)

HLSs are designed to provide information about a hurricane’s anticipated effects on the CWA

of the issuing WSO/WSFO. They are intended to consolidate information from the NHC, from

local authorities, and from WSO/WSFO resources. That information should include in order of

appearance:

 a brief statement about the current location of the storm;

 a forecast of expected weather conditions during the next hour or two;

 a brief review of watches/warnings that include the CWA; 

 an assessment of storm surge and tides for local area;

 a review of how conditions will impact commerce and society, i.e., road closures, power

failures, recommendations from emergency management; and

 a very brief call to action.

An HLS should not be a rewrite of the latest NHC advisory. Rather, it should stand on its own.

It is very important to keep the HLS fresh and brief. Most HLS products issued during Andrew

were issued in response to the issuance of NHC advisories. When a watch is in effect for the

local area, HLS frequency should be at least once every 3 hours. When a warning is in effect,

the frequency of product issuance should be increased. 

All affected WSOs and WSFO Miami (with the exception of WSO Fort Myers, a part-time office)

issued HLSs throughout the Andrew event in south Florida. Although NWS offices in south

Florida have good working relationships with their respective county emergency management

agencies, interaction between the NWS and emergency managers was markedly different from

county to county during Andrew. WSO Key West reported evacuation procedures and

instructions in great detail in HLSs, and WSO Tampa Bay contacted county emergency

management offices regularly for updated information to be used in HLSs. HLSs issued by WSO

West Palm Beach had less emergency response information than others but provided all possible

details that were made available to them. Both the Palm Beach County Emergency

Management (EM) and the WSO indicate that their communication was excellent during the

event. Early Sunday morning, August 24, Collier County faxed statements to WSFO Miami

regarding evacuation operations, but they were not included in Miami’s HLSs. Since the

facsimile machine is located in an administrative office at the WSFO (which is closed up over

weekends), the information never was received by those forecasters on duty. Collier County EM

did not telephone the WSFO to advise them of the facsimile transmittals.

Finding I.D.2: HLSs from WSO/WSFOs tend to be too lengthy, too infrequent, tend to

reiterate NHC advisories too much, and tend not to include enough specific
35

information about local conditions. Recommendation I.D.2: The NWS should explore

options to make HLSs more effective. This should include use of the "Short Term

Forecast" concept and its relationship to HLSs and hurricane advisories.

Furthermore, coastal offices should re-evaluate the manner in which data are

collected and used to create HLS products. Emphasis should be made on use of onstation software, emergency management information, and remote sensing data to

create a highly specific, current product. Most HLSs reiterated NHC information, such

as the entire watch/warning layout, listings of all counties in the CWA, details on "current"

position (which was sometimes 3 or 4 hours old), recommendations directed toward emergency

management, and broad storm surge, rainfall, and tide information. 

By focusing on the local environment and deleting information that does not concern the CWA,

much of the unneeded data could have been deleted. Detailed, local meteorological information

is available from remote sensing equipment, such as radar and satellite, and from surface

observations as well as data extracted from on-station PC software, such as GDS4.0 (Graphic

Decision System for Hurricanes), Tides, and SLOSH. This would have enhanced specific

information about local effects of storm surge, astronomical tides, and periods of extreme wind

or squalls. This, coupled with information on road closures from local officials, would have made

a more useable product.
36

This is the Dadeland Mobile Home Park following Hurricane Andrew.
37

CHAPTER I.E

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION AND 

WARNING SERVICES AND

RESPONSE ACTIONS BY EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AND MEDIA

Non-NWS Products Available to Emergency Management (EM)

Software

All coastal county emergency managers in the affected region and the Florida Division of

Emergency Management (DEM) received marine advisories from NHC as well as public

advisories, HLSs, and tropical cyclone discussions. Use of these products varied greatly from

county to county. All of the coastal counties and the state also have PC-based software into

which marine advisory forecasts are entered. The software calculates how close the center and

tropical storm-force winds are forecast to come to the user’s location and when those events are

forecast to occur. The times are then compared to lead times necessary to begin evacuation to

help officials determine when a decision point has been reached.

All of the coastal counties have a commercially available program entitled Enhanced Graphic

Decision System (GDS), which the counties purchased individually. Palm Beach, Broward,

Dade, and Monroe Counties also have a program named HURREVAC, primarily funded by

FEMA. In addition to the basic forecast implications referred to above, GDS has the added

feature of helping users account for forecast uncertainties. It not only displays NHC

probabilities but also draws probability ellipses around forecast positions and calculates the

closest point of approach (CPA) and timing implications of the forecast being wrong by NHC

average error margins. HURREVAC, in addition to performing the basic calculations described

in the preceding paragraph, also features an atlas of map screens displaying the areas which

could be flooded in various storm scenarios and lists data about shelters. Most counties used

their computer software, but the extent of that use is unclear. The impression is that in some

instances the software was used more as a tracking device.

Vendors

Some of the counties receive NWS radar and other specialized products from vendors. At least

one county (Lee) contracts with a private meteorological firm for forecast information and

counsel. This information was consistent with that contained in NHC/NWS products.
38

Interaction Between NWS and Emergency Management

Virtually all south Florida counties appeared to have good working relationships with their

respective NWS offices and reported varying degrees of interaction with NWS offices during

Andrew. WSO Key West, followed by WSO Tampa Bay, had the most contact with emergency

management in Andrew. WSO Key West reported evacuation procedures and instructions in

great detail in HLSs. WSO Tampa Bay contacted county emergency management offices

regularly. HLSs issued by WSO West Palm Beach had less emergency response information

than others although the WSO and EM both state that the communication was nevertheless

excellent. (In fact, WSO West Palm Beach was in continuous direct contact with emergency

management from Palm Beach, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties.) WSO Tampa Bay dispatched

two of its staff to WSO Fort Myers where they were stationed in the Lee County EOC. Lee

County officials indicated that their presence was helpful. County hurricane evacuation plans

in southwest Florida (Collier County northward to the Tampa Bay area) are interdependent.

Emergency management officials regularly held joint meetings and communicated with one

another as Andrew approached. Collier County reported that it faxed statements to WSFO

Miami regarding evacuation operations (but they were not included in Miami’s HLSs as

discussed in chapter I.D). Monroe County officials said they requested that WSFO Miami

include evacuation information regarding the upper Keys in its NWR broadcasts, but apparently

this was not done.

Monroe and Dade County emergency management are in a unique situation during hurricane

threats. Due to the proximity of NHC, they interact directly with NHC staff more than with

WSFO Miami. Monroe County EM Director, Billy Wagner, was present at NHC on Friday and

was joined there by the Dade County EM Director, Kate Hale, on Saturday. The State of

Florida pays for a telephone line to NHC so that information can be relayed directly to the state

EOC. This is in addition to the NAWAS line and the hurricane hotline.

The Monroe County EM director felt that he learned of information on Saturday afternoon

regarding a previously unforeseen increase in forward speed and intensity which led to his

taking actions before the 5 PM forecast package was released and the watch was posted. Florida

DEM officials indicated that they were not made aware of the upcoming forecast changes by

NHC, but an emergency management representative present at NHC notified them of the

likelihood of such an event. According to Florida DEM, the agency phoned NHC to inquire about

upcoming changes in the forecast, but an NHC forecaster could not confirm anything which had

not been included in the 11 AM EDT advisory. NHC Director, Dr. Robert Sheets, indicated that

he and the NHC forecasters always are willing to discuss whatever information is at their

disposal and believes there must have been a misunderstanding about what was being

requested.

Impact of Watches, Warnings, and Probabilities

Finding I.E.1: Concern was expressed by two emergency managers over the tone set

by NHC on Friday afternoon when a "Have a good weekend...tune back in on Sunday

or Monday" message was given to emergency management. Some officials felt that

message could have promoted a less-than-serious attitude and that it could have

caused them not to pay close attention to storm information during the weekend.
39

Recommendation I.E.1: Although NHC is extremely concerned about how

information is presented, care must continue to be exercised not to send unintended

messages. At least two emergency management officials expressed concern over Dr. Sheets’

comments. Because the emergency managers got such a message, city and county employees

that were needed to implement an evacuation were released for the weekend and became less

accessible. When that broadcast was made, Tropical Storm Andrew was slowing down as the

models suggested, and the probability for landfall in Miami by 2 PM EDT Monday was only

7 percent. According to Dr. Sheets:

"What I basically said to the emergency managers was that there was a low

probability of threat over the weekend to the Florida east coast but to tune in Sunday

and Monday because we were forecasting the storm to strengthen to hurricane

strength and threaten the Florida coast early in the week. I made similar comments

to the public, saying ’enjoy your weekend,’ but I added the usual caveat that it was

hurricane season and any time you have a storm east of us, you pay attention. I also

added that this ’enjoy your weekend’ comment assumed that you had done all the

things you should have done at the beginning of the hurricane season and were

prepared to act promptly if the need arose."

This situation reinforces the fact that our ability to predict the timing and intensity changes of

tropical cyclones needs further improvement. This suggests that every effort must be made to

maintain a heightened level of awareness when a potential threat exists.

During NOAA DST interviews with emergency management officials, not one emergency

management person mentioned the use of probabilities or GDS’s forecast error computations

as they described their preparedness actions. Interviewers did not press the issue, and it is

likely that most officials weighed the probabilities in some manner even if they didn’t refer to

them explicitly. Nevertheless, despite having been trained by NHC in the use of marine

advisories and other products, most emergency management officials still appear to depend

mainly upon watch and warning designations to trigger their evacuations. Only Monroe County

initiated any evacuation activities before a warning was issued. Dade County managerial

officials (above the emergency management level) apparently believe they take some sort of

greater financial risk in ordering evacuations before a warning is issued. Thus, Dade County,

as well as the Florida DEM, was critical of NHC for waiting until 8 AM EDT Sunday to issue

a warning, rather than including it in the 5 AM advisory. However, Dade County Emergency

Management Director, Kate Hale, stated that her actions would have been no different had the

warning been issued at 5 AM or, for that matter, at 2 AM. 

The northern extent of the warning area on the east coast was Vero Beach, which meant that

only the southern third of Indian River County was under a warning. Officials there said that

having part of the county in and part outside of the warning area created difficulties. Their

desire was to evacuate all or none of their coastal surge vulnerable areas since the time required

for evacuation and the shelter capacities needed are based upon the assumption that all of the

county is evacuating. Also, they felt that the public would become confused as to why part of

the county needed to evacuate and part did not. Other emergency managers disagreed and saw

nothing wrong with evacuating part of a county. NHC bases warnings on meteorological and

geographical information, tempered by the desire to keep overwarning to a minimum. Finding

I.E.2: Many coastal emergency managers do not understand the scientific reasoning
40

involved in designating hurricane watch and warning areas. They want to evacuate

either all or none of their coastal surge vulnerable area rather than parts of counties.

Recommendation I.E.2: There needs to be better dialogue between NHC and

emergency management involving the designation of hurricane watch and warning

areas. Conference calls following or preceding a watch or warning issuance always

should contain a thorough explanation for the choice of the end points of the areas.

NHC also should explore the feasibility of including this information in the tropical

cyclone discussions. Courses offered at NHC for emergency managers should include

a segment on the subject of designating watch and warning areas.

Impact of Forecasts and Forecast Errors

As noted above, all of the county and state emergency management offices received marine

advisories which included position and intensity forecasts. Officials also had tools available to

help them assess the response implications of the forecasts. The track forecasts in Andrew were

exceptionally good, but two other forecast components complicated response actions.

The forward speed of the storm is important information for emergency management because

it indicates when response actions need to begin. There were three forecast periods when the

forecast speed was notably off, the most important one being Saturday morning. The 11 AM

EDT forecast Saturday morning indicated that tropical storm-force winds would arrive in West

Palm Beach in 53 hours; the 5 PM forecast said tropical storm-force winds would arrive in Fort

Lauderdale in 35 hours. In 6 hours, emergency management lost 18 hours of response time (12

more than anticipated). From Miami’s perspective, tropical storm-force winds had been forecast

at 11 AM to reach their closest point of approach in 58 hours, which changed to 36 hours at 5

PM&a 22-hour difference. Thirty-six hours still provide ample time to respond to a category 2

or 3 storm and should be enough to respond to a category 4 as well. It did, however, put officials

on a decision "bubble," so to speak.

People evacuating out of the region in a category 2 or 3 storm require 25 hours, and with

nightfall approaching at 5 PM EDT Saturday, either the evacuation would need to begin at

night or end at night. Most emergency managers try to avoid nighttime evacuations. Only

Monroe County elected to have part of its population begin moving on Saturday night. Monroe

officials were able to begin preparations before the 5 PM advisory because of information gained

by being present at NHC earlier Saturday afternoon. Between 5 PM and 11 PM EDT, another

9 hours of response time were lost (3 more than anticipated). NHC was forecasting a category

3 at landfall, but because of forecast uncertainty, they cautioned officials by phone to plan for

a category 4. That turned out to be good advice.

Figure 6 depicts the predicted versus actual sustained winds for eight 24-hour forecast periods,

beginning Friday. Throughout most of the period, NHC forecasts were too low by a category.

Finding I.E.3: One critical aspect of hurricane forecasting&the intensification of

storms&lags far behind the balance of the science. SHIFOR, the computer model used

to forecast hurricane intensification, is old and ineffective. It does a poor job of

handling rapid intensification. Recommendation I.E.3: NHC, NMC, and HRD should

redouble their efforts to develop models and operational techniques to forecast

tropical cyclone intensity changes more effectively. In turn, NOAA should support

research efforts at understanding and predicting cyclone intensity changes. The 5
41

24-Hr Predicted vs. Actual Winds

Hurricane Andrew: August 21-23

Day/Time Forecast Issued

Knots

21/11 am 21/5 pm 21/11 pm 22/5 am 22/11 am 22/5 pm 22/11 pm 23/5 am 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Predicted

Actual

Figure 6 & 24-hour predicted vs. actual

winds.

AM EDT Sunday forecast was the best, off by

only 5 kts. This, however, did not reflect the

temporary but unanticipated intensification

up to 130 kts. (NHC now believes surface

winds at 5 AM EDT Monday were actually

125 kts, but the 120 kt figure from the

advisory was used in the graphic for

consistency.) Some observers have pointed

out that the forecast was good during the

critical period 24 hours preceding landfall;

however, the critical period for a category 4 is

36 hours, not 24.

In impending hurricane situations, emergency

managers are warned by NHC about the

uncertainty in intensity forecasts and told to

plan for events stronger than forecast&the

rule of thumb being to add a category. The GDS software in possession of all the counties in

south Florida indicates the likelihood of intensities exceeding various values based upon past

forecast error distributions. Just as making the warning area too large or too small has

economic and safety implications, so does evacuating too large or too small an area within a

community. Finding I.E.4: Some emergency managers could have made greater use

of hurricane strike probabilities and personal computer (PC) software in their

decision-making process. Recommendation I.E.4: Emergency management needs to

use all the tools available to them to provide information for their decision-making

processes, including PC-based software specifically designed for that purpose. The

NWS should work with FEMA to support more workshops for coastal emergency

managers. This should include instructions on how to use these tools effectively.

Evacuation Conditions

The warning on the Florida east coast extended from Vero Beach southward through the Florida

Keys and included part of Indian River County and all of Dade, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach,

Broward, and Monroe Counties. The watch on the east coast extended northward to Titusville

and encompassed almost all of Brevard County. On the west coast of Florida, the warning went

from Flamingo in the south to Venice in the north and included Monroe, Collier, Lee, Charlotte,

and part of Sarasota Counties. The warnings also applied to the counties bordering Lake

Okeechobee, primarily Glades and small parts of Hendry and Okeechobee Counties on the west

and the north shores of Palm Beach and Martin on the east. The watch on the gulf coast went

as far north as Bayport in Hernando County and also affected Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and

Manatee Counties.

Although numerous Florida counties were threatened and had to make response decisions in

Andrew, the counties of greatest concern were Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, and Monroe.

Andrew posed the greatest threat to these counties, and they have the largest populations at

risk and/or require the (table 1).
42

Storm Evacuating Clearance Time

County Category Population W/I Region Out of Region

Palm Beach 1 - 2 133,000 7 hrs 15.5 hrs

3 207,000 11 hrs 25 hrs

4 - 5 227,000 13 hrs 37 hrs

Broward 1 - 2 187,000 12.5 hrs 15.5 hrs

3 300,570 17.5 hrs 25 hrs

4 - 5 426,680 23 hrs 37 hrs

Dade 1 227,210 12 hrs 15.5 hrs

2 - 3 408,740 12 hrs 25 hrs

4 - 5 589,000 12 hrs 37 hrs

Monroe 1 - 2 62,665 18 hrs

3 - 5 73,290 27 hrs

Table 1

Evacuation Data for Southeast Florida Counties

Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties all have dense populations on barrier beaches that

would be affected by surge even in category 1 storms. In Palm Beach and Dade Counties, the

beaches are on barrier islands; whereas in Broward, they are separated only by a narrow,

dredged intracoastal waterway. Much of the Broward and southern Palm Beach County

"mainland," bordering the intracoastal waterway, consists of highly vulnerable dredge-and-fill

finger canal developments. The mainland topography in the region is such that flooding in

category 2 and 3 storms extends only a few blocks inland in most areas of all three counties.

Category 4 and 5 storms cause flooding only within a mile or less of the intracoastal waterway

in most parts of the counties. The most notable exception is southern Dade County, where

category 2 and 3 storms can inundate areas as much as 10 miles inland, and flooding from

category 4 and 5 storms can extend inland even further. The most densely populated parts of

Dade County are well north of this area, however. If the three counties evacuate for a category

4 rather than a category 3 storm, more than 300,000 additional people are affected.
43

Most evacuees are anticipated in evacuation plans to go to destinations within their own

county or to one of the adjacent counties. The times required to evacuate those people are

given in table 1 under Clearance Time Within Region. Broward requires more time than Palm

Beach and Dade, especially for a category 4 or 5 storm.

Evacuation plans are designed in the anticipation that a third or fewer of the evacuees will

leave the region, going to points north of Palm Beach County and/or inland. Doing so requires

that most evacuees use either the Florida Turnpike or I-95, both multilane limited access

highways. Transportation models indicate that congestion will be extreme on both roads

north of Palm Beach County. The times required to evacuate safely are listed in table 1 under

Clearance Time Out of Region. The times are the same for all three counties because the

congestion is occurring north of Palm Beach County so all three counties are affected equally.

For these evacuees, a category 3 storm requires 25 hours to evacuate and a category 4 or 5

storm requires 37 hours.

Monroe County consists mainly of the Florida Keys, a chain of islands extending from just

south of the Dade County coast southwestward more than 100 miles, terminating at Key West.

Most of the islands are flooded in category 1 or 2 hurricanes, and a category 3, 4, or 5 storm

floods virtually all of the Keys. The two-lane roads link the Keys to the mainland. Plans

anticipate that most evacuees will go to destinations in Dade County. Although a category 3

or greater storm affects only 9,000 more people than a category 1 or 2 storm, most are in Key

West, and the clearance time increases from 18 to 27 hours. Evacuating only the middle and

upper Keys (excluding Key West) requires 12 to 23 hours.

Emergency management officials attempt to complete their evacuation before the arrival of

tropical storm-force winds. Therefore, the initiation of evacuation must reflect not only the

clearance time but also the number of hours which tropical storm-force winds precede the

arrival of the hurricane’s eye.

Evacuation Actions by Local Emergency Management

Table 2 summarizes evacuation actions taken by coastal counties in Andrew. In Florida, both

state and county governments have the authority to order (i.e., compel) evacuation. Failure

to comply is a misdemeanor offense. Most counties exercised their authority to order

evacuation, but a few, mostly on the west coast, only recommended evacuation. St. Lucie

County recommended evacuation at 8 AM Sunday and then issued an evacuation order at

noon. Although Lee County was one which used a recommendation rather than an order, the

notice was worded so as to enhance compliance. Lee County was concerned about liability

issues if police were unable to secure and protect property in areas from which residents were

forced to leave.

Most counties issued press releases and held press briefings to announce the evacuations.

Some faxed messages to NWS offices to be included in HLSs, and some had call-down systems

to automatically notify specific groups, such as hospitals, municipal governments, and so forth.

In most municipalities, the evacuation notices were disseminated by police driving through

neighborhoods and using loudspeakers. All counties had plans to help evacuate people with

special needs. State law requires that nursing homes have evacuation plans (including 
44

County Action Time

St. Lucie Evacuated for Cat. 3 4:00 PM Sunday

Martin Evacuated for Cat. 3 3:00 PM Sunday

Palm Beach Evacuated for Cat. 3 3:00 PM Sunday

Broward Evacuated for Cat. 4/5 8:15 AM Sunday

Dade Evacuated for Cat. 3 8:15 AM Sunday

Evacuated for Cat. 4/5 9:15 AM Sunday

Monroe Evacuated non-residents

 for Cat. 3/4/5 3:00 PM Saturday

Evacuated Ocean Reef

 for Cat. 3/4/5 10:00 PM Saturday

Evacuated Middle and

 Upper Keys for Cat. 3/4/5 6:00 AM Sunday

Evacuated Lower Keys 11:00 AM Sunday

Collier Evacuated for Cat. 1 8:15 AM Sunday

Lee Evacuated for Cat. 1 2:30 PM Sunday

Charlotte Evacuated for Cat. 1 3:00 PM Sunday

Table 2

Evacuation Actions by Coastal Counties

transportation and sheltering). The special needs evacuations worked to varying degrees;

there were numerous examples of nursing homes "dumping" patients at public shelters. A

number of hospitals elected to stay in place rather than attempt evacuation.

The most interesting and innovative response actions were in Monroe County. Officials

implemented a phased evacuation, then forcibly terminated the evacuation out of the Keys,

and finally opened refuges of last resort. Since the storm occurred on a weekend, there were

numerous visitors from south Florida in the Keys. Officials decided to have as many visitors

as possible leave early so that if it became necessary to evacuate residents, the visitor 

population would not add to the time needed to evacuate. Between 2 and 3 Saturday

afternoon, before a watch was issued but as Andrew began to increase in forward speed,
45

Monroe County emergency management officials requested that state parks and recreation

areas be closed and urged non-residents to leave. At 6 PM EDT (after the watch was issued),

visitors were ordered out. At 10 PM EDT, Ocean Reef, a resort development of approximately

3,000 people near the northern end of the Keys, was ordered to evacuate. Early Sunday

morning, around 5 AM EDT, when the storm was first forecast to reach category 4 strength,

the middle and upper Keys were ordered to evacuate. This included all of the Keys east of the

Seven-Mile Bridge and excluded Key West, plus a few islands immediately east of Key West.

When it appeared to officials that traffic was moving well throughout Sunday morning, the

lower Keys were ordered to evacuate at 11 AM EDT.

One critical "choke point" for evacuation of the Keys is the two-lane segment of Route 1.

Although some traffic from the upper Keys is shunted over the toll bridge, Route 997, most

travel over Route 1. Both routes merge into Route 1 at Florida City. Shortly beyond the merge

point, the Florida Turnpike bears off from Route 1. Most of the Keys’ traffic heads north on

the Florida Turnpike. All people evacuating from the Keys must eventually travel into Dade

County; there is no alternative. Designated evacuation shelters for Keys’ residents are located

on the campus of Florida International University. Many evacuees bypassed the evacuation

shelters and traveled further north along the turnpike. Since many Dade County residents

also were evacuating along this route, massive traffic jams occurred.

A current concern in southern Florida is that most residents will attempt to evacuate, whether

they live in a surge zone or not. FEMA funded a post-Andrew assessment of the increased

number of evacuees on evacuation times. Their study shows that Finding I.E.5: As a result

of increased anxiety caused by Hurricane Andrew, many south Florida residents

indicated they would evacuate for future major hurricanes. Indeed, if this was the

case, evacuation times for a category 4 or 5 hurricane striking the Florida Keys

would increase from the pre-Andrew level of 37 hours to 70-80 hours, depending on

the percentage of residents evacuating. Recommendation I.E.5: NWS and FEMA

should work in concert to develop response options as outlined in

Recommendations I.B.4 and I.F.2. Evacuees would be better off in their homes rather than

risking being caught on the highway in their cars.

Response by the Media

The electronic and print media in south Florida played a crucial role in enabling the public to

respond to the approaching hurricane. The print media maintained a steady stream of

hurricane-related information, including the latest reports and forecasts as well as emergency

response information. The electronic media, including radio and television, augmented the

print media with the latest updates enhanced by color graphics and satellite photo-imagery.

The response of the media to this impending disaster provided response information to an

audience that otherwise the NWS would not have been able to reach.

The NWS recognizes the integral role that the news media and, in particular, the broadcast

media plays in disseminating weather warnings and vital information to the general public.

The link between the NWS, emergency management, and the broadcast media is critical to any

community warning system. Never before, however, has the NWS-media alliance been more

effective than during the hours preceding Hurricane Andrew’s landfall in Dade County. The
46

NHC, collocated with WSFO Miami, historically has utilized the electronic media as an

indispensable element of the warning system.

Finding I.E.6: The link between the NWS, emergency management, and the

broadcast media is critical to any community warning system. A partnership

developed to coordinate NHC information through a broadcast "pool" enabled a

large number of media outlets to receive broadcast footage from NHC without

crowding the facility and compromising the operational setting. Recommendation

I.E.6: NWS should support development of similar broadcast pools at local offices

along the hurricane-prone coasts, as well as at NMC, should backup for NHC be

required.

In the case of Andrew and in accordance with the pool agreement, the television stations

covering Dade and Broward Counties were notified that a local pool would be established at

NHC and the Dade County EOC beginning at 5 PM EDT, Saturday, August 22. Kate Hale,

Dade County EM, and Billy Wagner, Monroe County EM, were present at NHC at that time

and began systematic notifications and early planning of necessary evacuations.

All six local television stations, including two serving the Spanish-speaking community,

responded by sending producers and technicians to NHC. In addition, NBC, CBS, ABC, and

CNN all were notified and dispatched personnel. Beginning at 5 PM on Saturday, live

broadcasts featuring NHC staff (mainly Director Robert Sheets) were conducted at 5-minute

intervals for the duration of the event. In all, more than 600 interviews were broadcast.

Meanwhile, television meteorologists and the staffs of the major television stations provided

round-the-clock coverage of the hurricane’s progress and provided listeners with hurricane

safety advice. They were instrumental in encouraging evacuation from the threatened areas.

Finding I.E.7: Television meteorologists were instrumental in encouraging

evacuation from the threatened areas. Many of the television broadcasts were

simulcast on AM and FM radio. This was particularly useful since many residents

received lifesaving advice through their battery-operated radios when television

transmitters were knocked off the air. Recommendation I.E.7: NWS offices along

hurricane-threatened areas should continue to encourage proactive, weatherconscious media who will provide that essential link with the public to convey lifesaving information. Many of the television stations were simulcast on AM and FM radio.

This was particularly useful since many residents received lifesaving advice through their

battery-operated radios when television transmitters were knocked off the air.

Finding I.E.8: Efforts of the NWS, in conjunction with state and local emergency

management and the news media, resulted in clear and motivating messages to the

general public. Those messages resulted in a superb public response, except for

some residents of Miami Beach, and may have saved countless lives.

Recommendation I.E.8: NHC and WSFO Miami should work with the local media to

target those populations in Miami Beach where the response was deficient.
47

CHAPTER I.F

PUBLIC RESPONSE

Andrew’s approach and the flow of information from the NWS through the media and

emergency management agencies strongly elevated public awareness. In fact, the convective

rain bands over the Melbourne area caused much concern until it became apparent that the

main thrust of the hurricane would pass further south. The devastation which eventually

occurred over south Florida heightened the awareness in other vulnerable areas to the

significant inland wind damage which can accompany a hurricane.

The general impression of most observers is that the evacuation of the general public went

very well, with some notable exceptions along the beaches (see Evacuation Rates below).

Times required to clear the evacuating population appeared close to the times projected in

evacuation studies (see table 1). Traffic congestion that caused evacuees leaving south Dade

County at noon Sunday, August 23, to arrive in Orlando at 4 AM EDT Monday, August 24,

was anticipated by officials. There were unnecessary queuing delays on the Florida Turnpike

as toll booths continued operating, but the problem was eventually corrected. A draw bridge

in the Keys became stuck in the "up" position early Sunday morning but was fixed in less than

an hour. Subsequently, all bridges in the region were locked down for the duration of the

evacuation. Success in evacuating special facilities varied.

In January and February of 1993, Florida State University, with funding from the National

Science Foundation, conducted a survey with 1,100 residents of Broward, Dade, and Monroe

Counties to document public response to the threat.

Evacuation Rates

The percentage of residents who evacuated (i.e., left their homes to go someplace they believed

would be safer) in Andrew varied by proximity to the shoreline. In Broward County, 69

percent left from the Category 1-2 surge zone; and in Dade County, 71 percent left from the

Category 1 area. In the Broward Category 3 and Dade Category 2-3 zones, 63 percent

evacuated; and in Category 4-5 zones, 46 percent left from Broward County and 33 percent left

from Dade County. In both counties, 13 percent evacuated from inland areas beyond the

Category 4-5 surge limits. Had Andrew’s track been slightly farther north, a significant

number of homes would have been flooded with their occupants in them.

Evacuation from the Florida Keys (Monroe County) decreased from north to south and was

lower than that from the Broward and Dade County high-risk areas. In the upper Keys,

62 percent left, compared to 45 percent in the middle Keys, 40 percent in the lower Keys north

of Key West, and 25 percent in Key West. If Andrew’s track had been farther south, many

homes in the Keys also would have been flooded with their occupants still in them.
48

Although only 70 percent evacuated from the high-risk areas of Broward and Dade Counties

in Andrew, many residents (44 percent in Broward and 28 percent in Dade) said they didn’t

hear from officials that they were supposed to leave. Of those who said they did hear officials

say that they were to evacuate, only slightly more than half believed the notice was

mandatory. Overall, only 32 percent in Broward Category 1-2 and 42 percent in Dade

Category 1 evacuation zones believe they were ordered to evacuate.

Of those who indicated that officials told them to evacuate, 80 percent did compared to only

52 percent of those who said they weren’t told to leave. Of those who understood that they

were ordered to leave, 87 percent did so, and of the respondents who said that officials actually

came into their neighborhood making announcements that they must evacuate, 89 percent left.

Evacuation Timing

Ten percent of the evacuees from the Dade and Broward County high-risk areas said they had

already left when the watch was issued. Few others left during Saturday evening and night,

so that when a warning was issued the following morning, less than 15 percent of the eventual

evacuees had left. At that time, officials in both Broward and Dade Counties issued evacuation

orders. The evacuation rate clearly began to increase around 8 AM Sunday, and by 2 PM that

afternoon, slightly more than half the evacuees had left. By 6 PM, over 90 percent of the

evacuees had left. Response curves for lower risk areas of Broward and Dade Counties were

comparable but lagged slightly behind the curve for the highest risk zones.

As indicated in greater detail previously, the evacuation was phased in the Florida Keys.

Although most residents weren’t told to leave until early Sunday morning, many were aware

of the other evacuation activities going on earlier and some were probably influenced. Twenty

percent of the evacuees said they had already left when the hurricane watch was issued, and

another 10 percent left by Sunday morning when the general evacuation order was issued for

the upper Keys. The response curve began to increase sharply at that time, and by 9 AM, 50

percent of the evacuees had left. By 5 PM, 90 percent of the evacuees had left, and officials

halted evacuation out of the Keys from the upper Keys at 6 PM. Response curves for the

middle and lower Keys were similar but somewhat later.

The lower Keys and Key West, in particular, are perceived by Monroe County officials as

presenting a special response problem. Studies project that up to 40 percent of the residents

there would refuse to leave if so ordered. At least part of the reluctance to leave is attributed

to a concern that evacuation is impossible and that those attempting to leave could be trapped

on roads and bridges as the storm arrived. Finding I.F.1: NHC and NWS representatives,

when making a case for refuges of last resort, may have contributed unintentionally

to the problem of public resistance to evacuation by stressing the danger of being

caught trying to evacuate. Recommendation I.F.1: NWS and NHC representatives

need to stress to the public the importance of referring to appropriate state and

local emergency management directives about evacuation orders.

In the region overall, and perhaps beyond, most residents appear very willing to leave in the

future. In fact, many who would not be included in evacuation notices say they intend to leave
49

rather than stay behind and experience the sort of wind-borne destruction caused by Andrew

in southern Dade County. If all those who said they will leave in the future attempted to do

so and if they attempted to leave the region (as most say they would), the evacuation would

need to begin more (perhaps much more) than 48 hours before the arrival of the storm. Such

intentions are notoriously poor predictors of actual behavior, however, and officials would take

actions designed to curtail the shadow evacuation effect. Nevertheless, this will be an added

complication to evacuations in the region in the near future.

An interesting phenomena occurred in the Naranja Lakes area where damage was extreme.

As an area subject to potential storm surge, evacuation was recommended due to that threat.

Most residents did so, but several who did not lost their lives. However, those fatalities were

the result of wind-borne missiles, not storm surge. Finding I.F.2: If residents of the hard

hit Naranja Lakes area had not evacuated because of the storm surge threat, more

deaths likely would have resulted from the effects of wind. Recommendation I.F.2:

Since in many cases evacuation is not a viable option, the NWS and the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should work together to encourage the

concept of engineered in-residence shelters to protect from severe wind without

invoking evacuation procedures. Had those who evacuated not done so, many more lives

would have been lost.

Finding I.F.3: Many residents whose houses began to disintegrate during the storm

followed "tornado safety rules" and went to the interior part of their house away

from windows and outside walls. Whether this was an obvious sort of adaptive response,

whether there was a background level of awareness about what to do as learned from tornado

awareness efforts, or whether people were being instructed over radio and television to do so,

the response was good. In response to the success of this action, Lee County has already begun

to develop instructions, complete with sketches, to be included in telephone books.

Recommendation I.F.3: NWS and emergency management agencies should make

"tornado safety rules" a standard component of hurricane awareness efforts,

especially for strong storms. The public also should be better educated about the

kinds of construction and building designs which are most vulnerable in strong

hurricanes.
50

Intense winds associated with Andrew caused the shearwall to fail on the lee

side of this multifamily structure

This stack storage facility at Black Point Marina, Dade County, collapsed

under Andrew’s intense winds. One-third of the 45,000 registered boats in

Dade County were damaged.
51

CHAPTER I.G

PROCESSING, INTERPRETATION,

 AND DISSEMINATION OF NWS INFORMATION

Utilization of Hurricane Forecasting Models by NHC and NMC

The overall performance of the track prediction models used by NHC was very good during

Hurricane Andrew. In particular, the Aviation (AVN) model delivered an extremely good

performance. NHC’s forecast operations had access to seven (7) numerical models for track

prediction. These models included both statistical and dynamical types with some

incorporating both concepts in their design. Although NHC depends heavily on the use of these

model outputs, it is always the forecaster’s judgment and experience that ultimately

determines NHC’s official track forecast. 

Statistical models provide forecasters with calculated storm movements within minutes after

initialization, while the dynamical models may take up to 6 hours to run. Therefore, the

statistical models always are available to the forecaster while the dynamical models, such as

the Aviation (AVN) and the Quasi-Lagrangian Model (QLM), are run every 12 hours.

The vital data ingredients for these models include the storm’s direction and speed of

movement (translation), storm intensity, storm geographical location, and date. These data

can be most accurately assessed by aircraft reconnaissance and, as the Melbourne WSO’s

WSR-88D proved in Andrew, by modern radar. Satellite imagery, although vital for tracking

cyclones over more remote ocean areas, does not consistently provide the degree of data

accuracy needed when storms threaten coastlines.

There is only one operational model that is specifically used to predict the rate of

strengthening, the SHIFOR (Statistical Hurricane Intensity Forecast) model. Although the

model underestimated the rate of strengthening of Andrew particularly during its rapidly

deepening period, the hurricane warning lead time was not impeded. 

The NHC issued 37 official track forecasts during the time Hurricane Andrew existed as a

tropical cyclone; one forecast every 6 hours. Using the best available data on the storm, an

official "actual best track" is determined for comparison and verification purposes of all official

forecasts.

Table A.5 in appendix A lists the official average track errors in nautical miles for various

model guidance during Hurricane Andrew. The track errors for Andrew are considerably less

than the 10-year average but not as small as the forecast errors for Hurricane Hugo. The

CLIPER (CLImatology-PERsistence) errors are useful as a measure of forecast difficulty: the

larger the CLIPER errors, the more difficult is the forecast. The Andrew CLIPER errors were

much larger than the Hugo CLIPER errors, indicating that the Andrew track was a more

difficult one to forecast. All of the models are verified on the same set of forecast cases. 
52

The Aviation model, with its new synthetic data system, had the smallest errors at 36, 48 and

72 hours, while the QLM had the smallest errors at 24 hours, and CLIPER and NHC90 (NHC

1990 Hurricane Computer Forecasting Program) were tied for the smallest errors at the short

range of 12 hours. Finding I.G.1: Small errors in the track forecast produced by the

Aviation Model were impressive for this small sample of forecasts. Recommendation

I.G.1: NOAA should continue to support development of such models. In order to

use these models most effectively, methods need to be explored to gather better data

in and around tropical cyclones. The Omega dropwinsonde experiment should be

conducted to evaluate the potential of this capability. 

SLOSH Model Performance

For more than 12 years, the NWS has been modelling hurricane storm surges with the SLOSH

model. This numerical computer model calculates hurricane storm surges in a given area (or

basin) based on hurricane track, size, and intensity. It does not incorporate the effects of wave

action. The model has been applied to all of the eastern and gulf coasts of the United States.

SLOSH was designed originally to compute storm surges in real-time as a hurricane

threatened the coast. More recently, the model has been run in a "simulation study" mode,

where hundreds of hypothetical storms are simulated with the flooding data from each stored.

These data form the "hazard" basis of comprehensive hurricane evacuation planning.

Hurricane Andrew significantly affected four United States SLOSH basins as well as the

Bahamas SLOSH basin. The four United States basins were Biscayne Bay (Miami), Florida;

Florida Bay, Florida (Keys); Charlotte Harbor (Ft. Myers), Florida; and Vermilion Bay,

Louisiana. Simulation studies were completed in both Biscayne Bay and Charlotte Harbor;

only the Vermilion Bay area had no completed study.

The Bahamas

Early in 1990, Mr. Arthur Rolle of the Bahamas Meteorological Service (BMS) worked with the

NWS’s Techniques Development Laboratory (TDL) adapting the SLOSH model to parts of the

Bahamas. Their efforts focused on extracting bathymetry and topographic features needed by

the model as well as learning about the model itself. The Bahamas basin coverage is shown

in figure 7. After completing the model, Mr. Rolle worked with NHC conducting a SLOSH

simulation study. In such a study, hurricanes of various landfall directions with differing landfall points, categories, and forward speeds are chosen as storms possible in an area’s

climatology. In total, 1,225 hurricanes were used as input to the SLOSH model. A total of 67

composites called Maximum Envelopes of Water (or MEOWs) were formed from this massive

amount of surge data by choosing the maximum surge at each model grid square from a

"family" of similar storms. These MEOWs are extremely useful for emergency managers in

making evacuation decisions and form the "hazards" portion of hurricane evacuation planning.
53

Figure 7 & SLOSH basins affected by Hurricane Andrew
54

This simulation study was completed well in advance of Hurricane Andrew although a full,

comprehensive hurricane evacuation plan has not been done. In addition to having the

SLOSH data in its raw form, the SLOSH graphics display program developed by TDL also was

available to the BMS. This program allows the rapid recall of MEOWs and presents the data

on a map background. When Andrew began to threaten the Bahamas, Mr. Rolle was in

contact with the storm surge experts at NHC regarding the possible impact of the hurricane.

At 11 AM EDT on August 22, the Bahamas’ government issued a hurricane watch for the

northwestern Bahamas. At 5 PM EDT that afternoon, the watch was upgraded to a warning

for the northwestern Bahamas, including the islands of Andros, Eleuthera, Grand Bahamas,

and Great Abaco. Storm surges of 8-10 feet above normal and dangerous wave action were

expected, according to the forecast.

Andrew continued to intensify. Forecast surge levels were raised to 10 to 12 feet at 11 PM

EDT, August 22, then further increased to 10 to 14 feet in the 5 AM EDT, August 23, advisory.

Andrew continued to intensify and was referred to as a "dangerous category 4" storm in the

11 AM EDT, August 23, NHC advisory. That advisory pointed out that up to 18 feet of surge

was possible for the northwest portion of Eleuthera.

Andrew passed over northern Eleuthera about 5 PM EDT on August 23 and was located

approximately 25 miles north of Nassau at 8 PM EDT on August 23. High water marks

measured on Eleuthera ranged to 25 feet above local mean sea level in the town of The

Current. One storm surge drowning occurred in Lower Bogue where a water level of 18 feet

was observed. (With these values for water level, storm surge is not separated from wave

run-up.)

South Florida

The first mention of surge levels along Florida’s coastline was in the 8 AM EDT, August 23,

advisory&8 to 12 feet of surge near where the center makes landfall. In the 11 AM EDT,

August 23, advisory, the forecast was made more specific: 7 to 10 feet along the Florida east

coast, with 9 to 13 feet possible in Biscayne Bay.

In 1988, NHC completed a simulation study for hurricane storm surges in the Biscayne Bay

SLOSH basin. A similar study had been completed for the Florida Keys the year before.

Information concerning storm surge flooding was passed along to the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers and FEMA as well as to state and local officials involved with hurricane evacuation

planning. A comprehensive evacuation plan for metropolitan Dade County was distributed in

May 1991, which incorporated the surge hazard as depicted by SLOSH.

Throughout past hurricane evacuation planning, the policy has been to evacuate all people

living within the area of potential surge flooding. For Dade County, a threat from a category

4 hurricane would mean that all areas east of Cutler Ridge, the entire Homestead area, and

Miami Beach would need to be evacuated. Cutler Ridge is an ancient coral ridge that extends

southward from Miami through the town of Cutler Ridge. In Miami, the ridge has an elevation

of about 22 feet. Elevations decrease to about 14 feet at the town of Cutler Ridge and to

roughly 8 feet around Homestead. Miami Beach, with its large population of elderly people,

presents special problems for the emergency managers since many of these elderly people

would need to rely on public transportation. All of these areas were told to evacuate preceding

Hurricane Andrew.
55

Initial reports of storm surge flooding indicated only a few feet and were based on gauges in

and around the Miami area. However, these gauges were too far north to capture the peak

levels of surge flooding, especially considering Andrew’s compact size. Almost immediately

following the storm, the USACE and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) entered the disaster area

and flagged high water marks. The observer described each mark’s location and its immediate

surroundings. These marks were later surveyed, tying the elevations back to known

benchmarks. At the request of the NWS, observations were made inland to determine the

extent and distribution of flooding.

The highest storm tide mark was found at the Burger King World Headquarters building&16.9

feet NGVD (the reference datum used on USGS quadrangle maps). Several other high water

marks nearby confirm that this level was reasonable. At the Deering Estate, a level of

16.5 feet was measured. This mark was inside the building, inside a closet, under a stairwell.

In such a location, a good "stilling well" effect, damping out wave action, is expected.

Peak storm tide values over 16 feet occurred in a very localized area. Flooding dropped off

quickly on either side of the maximum. Figure 8 shows the distribution of storm tides as

measured by the USGS and USACE.

The NOS’s Office of Ocean and Earth Sciences operates one Next Generation Water Level

Measurement System (NGWLMS) gauge in the Miami area, located at Haulover Pier.

Although the gauge recorded water levels of only about 4.5 feet North American Vertical

Datum, corresponding to storm tide levels of only about 2.6 feet, the station structure suffered

major damage from Andrew.

NWS’s SLOSH model was run for hurricanes similar to Andrew during the simulation studies.

One storm surge product available to NWS forecasters is a MEOW which closely matches

Hurricane Andrew: category 4 hurricanes moving west, figure 9. The maximum surge possible

is about 14 feet. This particular MEOW was run with a forward speed of 12 mph; Andrew was

moving at about 20 mph. Since faster forward speeds generally produce larger storm surges,

a slightly larger surge could be expected. In addition, the initial water level of the simulation

study was 1 foot. Observed water levels were running about 1 foot above the predicted

astronomical tide for the day prior to Andrew. Adding to this water level, Andrew arrived at

roughly the time of high astronomical tide.

Andrew’s storm surge impact along the west coast of Florida was (relatively) minimal.

Andrew’s eye passed to the south of Marco Island, exiting over the Everglades. Several high

water marks were measured in the populated areas near Marco Island. However, USGS and

USACE survey crews could not locate any reliable high water marks to the south in the

Everglades.

Finding I.G.2: The storm surge impacted a relatively small area of coastline, but the

SLOSH model accurately depicted the surge in south Florida. Recommendation

I.G.2: Refinements to the SLOSH model should continue. Also, training of NWS

offices and emergency managers in its use should be emphasized. The SLOSH model

should be validated in cooperation with the NOS/Office of Ocean and Earth Sciences

(OES) and others to further continued improvements in the model. A greater effort

should be made to document its physics and the validation efforts that justify its

use. NOS should assist with such a documentation.
56

Figure 8 & High water marks in Dade County, south Florida, during 

Hurricane Andrew.
57
58

Hurricane Andrew was simulated in the Charlotte Harbor basin with the SLOSH model using

the best available information to identify the storm. Highest surges computed in this

simulation is shown in figure 10 with high water mark information superimposed. Winds were

offshore to the north of the storm’s track until after the eye’s passage. At the time of eye

passage off the coast, the winds turned, generating the observed highest surges. South of the

track, winds were consistently onshore during the storm and generated storm surges of up to

7 feet. Again, no observations could be made in this area to verify the computed storm surges.

Utility of Other PC Software

Products Available to the NWS

Three major PC-based software packages are available to NWS offices along Florida coastlines:

SLOSH, GDS4.0, and Tides. NWS personnel from the WSOs and WSFO Miami were

questioned regarding their use of this software during the days and hours preceding the

landfall of Hurricane Andrew. Unfortunately, due to lack of available hardware, most offices

did not make active use of this software. 

In most WSOs and even some WSFOs, PC use generally is limited to (1) an SRWarn Computer

and (2) a Micro-Arts PC for compiling and disseminating surface observations. Finding I.G.3:

On-station computers at WSOs and WSFOs are inadequate to run storm surge and

applications programs. Limitations to these PC-type computers mean that resident

programs are terminated while applications programs are run. This is cumbersome and

ineffective. In some WSFOs, additional computers are on station for use by management and

support staff. These PCs, however, are not routinely available to operational staff. In order

to utilize the above software, the operational staff would have had to terminate resident

programs, such as the surface observation program and SRWarn. This was determined to be

inordinately cumbersome. AFOS does not have the capacity to serve as an alternative.

Recommendation I.G.3: Coastal NWS offices should be provided sufficient PC

hardware and software to display SLOSH MEOW (Maximum Envelop of Water) data

as well as to run surge applications and hurricane decision-making programs. The

Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS), under development for

future NWS Weather Forecast Offices, should be able to support these programs.
59

Figure 10 & South Florida west coast storm surge.
60
61

CHAPTER I.H

COMMUNICATIONS

Automation of Field Operations and Services (AFOS)

The NHC and WSFO Miami share and use many of the same communications systems.

However, they are separate AFOS node sites with each AFOS mainframe containing identical

data bases for reciprocal backup purposes. Both the NHC and WSFO Miami AFOS systems

functioned throughout Andrew. It was not necessary to invoke any backup for these systems.

Due to eventual failure of the air-conditioning system, the ambient temperature around AFOS

reached approximately 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Excessive heating was avoided by turning off

some unused components. WSFO Miami also called on WSFO’s Sterling and Atlanta for

backup of products in anticipation of the heat problems with AFOS.

AFOS also worked well at WSO Melbourne as did the Remote Terminal to AFOS (RTA) at

WSO Palm Beach. On Sunday, August 23, a Melbourne electronics technician arranged an

AFOS link to WSO Fort Myers, where a temporary NWS detail had been set up at the local

EOC for taking calls and briefing the EOC. Melbourne also performed an AFOS dial test with

WSO West Palm Beach on Sunday evening to ensure that West Palm Beach could link with

AFOS through their RTA system in the event that the Miami AFOS became disabled. The

AFOS communications link between NHC/WSFO Miami and WSO Key West failed at 5:15 AM

on August 24 as Andrew was making landfall in south Dade County. The AFOS at WSO Key

West worked well during Andrew, but the office was out of contact with the state and national

AFOS network for the duration of the communications outage which lasted for just over 49

hours.

NOAA Weather Wire Service (NWWS)

NHC and WSFO Miami have separate satellite-driven NWWSs with distinct uplink and

downlink antennae, all of which failed just prior to hurricane landfall. This was probably due

to misalignment of the antennae caused by strong winds and/or corrosion and bending of the

receiver horns. However, their respective uplink backups worked well (WSO Tampa Bay and

the National Forecast Division [NFD]), and all NWWS products were successfully transmitted.

The NWWS uplink antenna at WSO Tampa Bay was damaged by lightning prior to the

hurricane threat. NWS Southern Region Headquarters had difficulty in getting the

maintenance contractor, GTE-CONTEL, to repair the system to ensure dependable NWWS

backup. Weather Service Headquarters intervened, and the problem was corrected in time for

the Tampa Bay NWWS to function properly. This turned out to be critical since the Tampa

Bay backup was needed by WSFO Miami.

The NWWS receivers for both NHC and WSFO Miami were restored Monday afternoon,

August 24, about 12 hours after failure. Both transmitting antennae were restored the next

day after new parts were installed. In contrast to some states, Florida has a large number of
62

NWWS subscribers as a result of an aggressive promotional campaign several years ago.

These subscribers include many emergency managers, the media, utility companies,

agricultural and aviation interests, and large corporations, such as Walt Disney World/Vista

United. In view of such a diverse group of subscribers, it appears that the NWWS is an

important method of NWS dissemination in Florida.

Neither WSO Melbourne nor WSO West Palm Beach drive an NWWS. Instead, their products

are normally uplinked through the WSFO Miami system. In both cases, all hurricane-related

products were successfully uplinked through WSFO Miami or the WSO Tampa Bay backup

antenna once Miami’s antenna failed.

NOAA Weather Radio (NWR)

WSFO Miami operates one NWR console which drives a single transmitter. This NWR failed

about the time of landfall on August 24 due to wind damage to the UHF antenna at the WSFO

that links the console signal to the main transmitter. The main transmitter remained intact

since it was located on a multi-use commercial facility, the Gannett Tower, well north of peak

hurricane winds near the Dade-Broward County line. An emergency generator supports the

transmitter at the Gannett Tower. Until early August, the transmitter had been located on

a commercial television transmission tower in Homestead which was destroyed by the

hurricane. The damaged UHF antenna was repaired, and the NWR broadcast resumed during

the early evening of August 25 after about a 36-hour outage.

There was, of course, an abundance of pictorial and detailed updates on Andrew provided by

the commercial media. Nevertheless, there was widespread acceptance and use of NWR in the

greater Miami area by marine and agricultural interests and the general public. They were

served well by the WSFO Miami NWR which aired a complete suite of warnings, statements,

and forecasts related to the hurricane until the UHF antenna failure near time of landfall.

Finding I.H.1: Despite the extensive commercial media coverage of Andrew, both

the NWWS and NWR were well received and were utilized as official and timely

sources of NWS information regarding the event. Recommendation I.H.1: The NWS

should continue strong encouragement of the widespread use of NWWS and NWR

as official sources of NWS information. High priority should be placed on planned

NWR upgrades and more wind-resistant transmitters, featuring voice synthesis, to

improve the quality and efficiency of NWR dissemination during major weather

events. The NWS should develop partnerships with FEMA and other organizations

to increase NWR coverage as well as the broadcasting of critical pre- and post-event

information.

NWR consoles and transmitters worked well at both WSO Melbourne and WSO West Palm

Beach, and all pertinent hurricane products were broadcast.
63

National Warning System (NAWAS)

NAWAS remained functional except in the Keys where it, along with all other land-line

communications, failed at 5:15 AM on August 24. Many local and state agencies have drops

on NAWAS in Florida, with only two Florida counties not on the system. The Florida NAWAS

also serves all emergency managers, most law enforcement offices, and the NWS offices.

During Andrew, as in other recent hurricanes, the Director of NHC used the state NAWAS

circuit to good advantage in briefing emergency managers and the WSOs on the latest NHC

thinking and in receiving questions and comments. This helped to ensure that local decision

makers were in the direct loop of critical information. Finding I.H.2: NHC made effective

use of the Florida National Warning System (NAWAS) circuit to communicate with

Florida emergency managers and Florida WSOs on important hurricane

information. Recommendation I.H.2: FEMA, NWS, and state emergency

management offices should develop procedures to use the national NAWAS circuit

for multistate conference calls so that NHC can brief all appropriate emergency

management officials on the network during a hurricane threat.

Hurricane Hotline Internal Coordination System

The hurricane hotline worked well during Andrew although in other hurricanes this dedicated

telephone land line sometimes failed. The hurricane hotline is an internal system used

primarily by coastal WSFOs, military weather offices, and national and regional NWS offices.

The WSOs do not have a drop on the hotline. Any advance or internal coordination given to

the WSOs was initiated by the WSOs over regular telephone lines. The WSOs were not

included in the roll calls over NAWAS. NAWAS is not a secure circuit for discussing "internal"

NWS information, as The Weather Channel has access and did a pre-release watch and

warning information to the public.

IBM Mainframe Computer

The most serious communications problem at NHC was the failure of the IBM 4381 mainframe

computer. This computer drives the McIDAS VDUC, which ingests and displays real-time

interactive satellite, gridded, and lightning data. Due to excessive heat build-up, the IBM

underwent an orderly power down. When restoration was attempted, a mechanical failure

occurred. In addition, there was serious damage to the antenna which receives the GOES and

Meteosat-3 (Meteorological Operations Satellite) data for display on the McIDAS. Finding

I.H.3: Excessive heat build-up contributed to the failure of the IBM mainframe

computer at the NHC during the hurricane. This was the most serious

communications failure at NHC because of the IBM’s role in driving the McIDAS

VDUC, a principal source of interactive satellite data for the NHC staff. In addition,

other important circuits failed which depended on the IBM. Recommendation I.H.3:

The NWS should install a stand-alone air-conditioning system for the NHC

independent of leased commercial facilities. This would greatly minimize the

heating problem of critical communications and computer equipment. Although the

IBM 4301 mainframe and NHC-based satellite antennas failed, a backup system through work

stations linked with the VDUC system at NMC continued to operate. This system provided
64

a basic set of satellite imagery on NHC systems. Also, satellite data continued to be received

through SWIS (Satellite Weather Information System), micro-SWIS, and the Unifax, all of

which remained functional during the storm.

Telephone Systems

NHC has an Eagle electronic telephone system for use with external agencies and the public.

The UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) battery backup system for these telephones failed.

However, the phones were still useable after being connected into some dedicated Federal

Telephone System (FTS) lines originally designed for data collection. In addition, other

dedicated lines, such as the FAA hotlines, were used in lieu of the failed conventional

telephones. Telephone lines from the Florida WSOs worked well, but telephone service into

the NHC was cut off just prior to landfall. Communication between the WSOs and NHC was

maintained through NAWAS.

Land Lines Versus Satellite

Many communications problems at NHC were due to failed satellite antennae on top of the

NHC building. South Florida has a dependable, well constructed, land-line system which, in

general, fared better than many of the modern satellite links, the antennae of which were

badly damaged by the hurricane-force winds. Thus, most land-line circuits at NHC remained

operational, including the radio fax circuit to marine radio station WLO in Mobile, the Tropical

Regional Analysis Facsimile Circuit (TROPAN) circuit to Cape Canaveral and others, and two

circuits to Jamaica and Haiti, the only source of NWS hurricane information to these countries.

By contrast, the Digital Facsimile (DIFAX) failed. DIFAX is a receive-only satellite link

between NMC and WSFO Miami for relay of aviation weather data. Similarly, the Chief

Aerial Reconnaissance Coordination for All Hurricanes (CARCAH) reconnaissance military

circuit failed due to wind damage to the receiving antenna. Thus, aircraft reconnaissance data

had to be routed via the backup system through Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, to NWS

Central Flow Computer Facility in Washington, D.C., and finally to the S-140 computer at

NHC.

Amateur Radio

The Dade County Amateur Radio Public Service maintains close ties with NHC and had VHF

(Very High Frequency) voice, VHF packet, and HF (High Frequency) sideband antennae at the

NHC office. This equipment was checked out by amateur radio operators on Saturday, August

22. Their usual role is to communicate with the Florida Keys and other offshore areas

damaged by tropical cyclones. Since Andrew did relatively little damage in the Keys, the radio

operators who normally coordinate with NHC to aid the Keys decided that their services would

not be needed. By late Sunday, when it was determined that they might well be useful at

NHC for emergency communications, the operators were already committed for other

emergency tasks and/or concerned about their own safety. Thus, no amateur radio personnel

were present at NHC during the storm, but their assistance would have been limited because,

like so many others, their antennae were also destroyed atop the NHC building.
65

The Emergency Broadcast System (EBS)

The primary Common Program Control Station (CPCS)-1 EBS station for the Miami area is

WINZ/AM, transmitting at 50,000 watts. On Saturday evening, August 22, the chief engineer

of WINZ called a meeting of his radio staff to alert them to the potential urgency of the

situation. At that time, he assigned an additional operator to master control. According to

their procedures, WINZ initially received the 8 AM EDT August 23 hurricane warning for

south Florida via the WSFO Miami NWR which is carried through a dedicated phone line to

a voice box at the radio station. They activated EBS after verifying the warning through hard

copy receipt from AP. The chief engineer estimated that from 3 to 5 minutes elapsed between

initial NWR receipt of the warning and EBS tone activation by WINZ. The range of WINZ is

from Lake Okeechobee to the Florida Keys. They voluntarily sounded the EBS tone and

broadcast the warning again at noon. This station is also linked to many state and county

emergency managers through a VHF radio net that allowed them to receive and broadcast

Governor Lawton Chiles’ state of emergency and evacuation order at 3 PM EDT on Sunday,

August 23.

WINZ stayed on the air throughout the storm. For about 2 weeks after the hurricane, WINZ

requested and was granted a Federal Communications Commission waiver to continue 24-hour

a day service at 50,000 watts. During this time, they rebroadcast "radio recovery" information

from the military regarding locations of food, supplies, etc., for the hurricane- stricken area.

WQBA, the primary EBS station for Latin American residents in Miami, did not activate EBS.

The chief engineer at WQBA explained that EBS is normally activated for short-fuse

emergency conditions for which the public has little or no warning. The station decided not to

activate because the hurricane threat to the area was already well known, and all relevant

information was being widely disseminated. Except for a couple of minutes near time of

landfall, WQBA stayed on the air, suspended regular programming, and broadcast emergency

information as a public service. They were able to continue broadcasting because they

anticipated the power failure at the studio and made arrangements to broadcast temporarily

directly from their transmitter site.

Other Communications at the Florida WSOs

A packet radio link was set up by amateur radio personnel between WSO Melbourne and NHC.

This would have allowed NHC to download a text file (e.g., an advisory) via radio to Melbourne

who, in turn, could enter the product into AFOS. As it turned out, the link was never needed.

WSO West Palm Beach had amateur radio links to EOCs in their area, and a ham operator

was present at the WSO to manage this network. External users of the WSR-88D at

Melbourne were served with no problem through either dedicated or dial-up lines. WSFO

Sterling also dialed into the Melbourne Doppler to get data needed for their marine forecast

backup of WSFO Miami.
66

An aerial view of the World Headquarters for Burger King, site of a 16.9-foot

storm surge. Note the windows blown out by Andrew’s intense winds.

This photo depicts wind damage to the top floor of the Burger King World

Headquarters building.
67

CHAPTER I.I

DATA COLLECTION

Data used in assessing and forecasting Atlantic basin tropical cyclones is acquired using both

remote sensing equipment and direct observation. The remote sensing methodology includes

satellite imagery and radar, while the direct observation methodology includes aircraft

reconnaissance, surface observations (both human and automatic), and unofficial public

reports. All of these potential sources were used prior to and during Hurricane Andrew. What

follows is an assessment of the performance of those information sources. 

Satellite Imagery

The most reliable manner of examining the physical characteristics of a tropical cyclone, e.g.,

its wind and pressure fields, banding, and overall structure, is by direct measurement. When

a storm is too far from land to be reached by reconnaissance aircraft, direct measurement is

not possible. Finding I.I.1: Satellite imagery is the only source of information over

data-sparse oceans, except for ships which generally avoid rough weather.

Recommendation I.I.1: NOAA must make every effort to ensure that the GOES-Next

(Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-Next Generation Satellite)

program remains on schedule. Meanwhile, No-GOES plans need to be tested

routinely.

During Hurricane Andrew, the NHC used two primary satellite data feeds to view the tropical

system that became Andrew: the European owned Meteosat-3 which was moved into position

on loan backup to the GOES-7. The Meteosat was used as the storm began its trek across the

Atlantic, and the GOES data became valuable as the storm reached the central Atlantic.

Additionally, high resolution 1-km polar orbiter data were obtained as the storm approached

the Bahamas and south Florida. The Defense Military Satellite Program (DMSP) high

resolution data was not utilized by the NHC. Complex down-loading procedures from Air Force

Global Weather Headquarters at Offutt AFB through the NMC and then to NHC make it

unavailable for NHC in real-time. The imagery, from which valuable wind and rainfall data

can be obtained, is received from Offutt at NMC and is obtained via Ethernet at NHC. This

results in about a 2-hour delay.

The first evidence of a developing tropical disturbance was obtained using satellite imagery

from Meteosat-3. On August 14, a tropical wave was detected as it moved off the western coast

of North Africa. That system was monitored continuously as it migrated west at about 15

knots (18 mph), passing south of the Cape Verde Islands on August 15. At that time,

meteorologists from the NHC Tropical Satellite Analysis and Forecast (TSAF) unit and the

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) Synoptic Analysis

Branch (SAB) found the wave sufficiently developed to begin detailed, quantitative evaluation.
68

In addition to examining the local environment of the tropical disturbance, satellite images

were used to assess large-scale patterns. For example, soon after Tropical Storm Andrew was

born on August 17, the approach of an upper level trough in the westerlies began to shear the

system. The approach of the trough and its interaction with Andrew was observed using

visual, infrared, and water vapor satellite imagery. 

Once Andrew survived its nearly fatal interaction with the upper level trough, it grew rapidly

into hurricane status. Satellite imagery, in consonance with aircraft reconnaissance, was

critical to determining the character of Andrew. The intensity and rate of intensification, the

convective strength and fluctuation, and spiral banding are basic features examined by

satellite, especially at night when aircraft reconnaissance is not done. 

Aircraft Reconnaissance

An essential data gathering tool in tropical cyclone evaluation for NHC is aircraft

reconnaissance. The Air Force Reserve aircraft reconnaissance was extremely valuable. The

NHC uses satellite imagery, but upon approach of a tropical cyclone to land, its prime data

gathering mechanism is in situ monitoring by aircraft. Without aircraft derived data, it is

doubtful that NHC would have realized the gravity of the developing situation during Andrew’s

approach to south Florida. Finding I.I.2: Aircraft reconnaissance is a necessary and

vital tool for measuring storm intensity, for defining wind fields, and for calibrating

satellite estimates of storm intensity. However, the current airframes are aging and

provide limited range and performance characteristics. Recommendation I.I.2:

Aircraft reconnaissance of tropical cyclones must continue. In order to provide

high quality data on the storm and its environment, NOAA should explore costeffective options on future sensors and airframes. This must be done now if we are

to make effective use of next generation models for tropical cyclone intensity and

track forecasting. The aircraft data showed reintensification after the Bahamas in the

pressure measurements, a phenomena that was not detected in real-time by any other means.

The reconnaissance continued until landfall and resumed promptly upon Andrew’s entry into

the Gulf of Mexico.

The use of NOAA’s Step Frequency Microwave Radiometer and Doppler radar capabilities to

measure wind fields could have been a powerful tool to confirm the magnitude of the pending

disaster as well as to reduce the subsequent debate about Andrew’s wind speeds.

Unfortunately, the Aircraft Operations Center (AOC) was forced for safety reasons not to

utilize their aircraft around the time of landfall due to increasing turbulence and vertical

mixing caused by the storm’s interaction with land. One of the aircraft was available to take

the NHC emergency backup team to NMC. In fact, AOC does not fly reconnaissance at night

with named storms near land due to the level of risk.

Radar Imagery

As Hurricane Andrew moved to within 200 nm of the south Florida coast, it came into range

of the NWS Weather Surveillance Radars (WSR) at Miami, West Palm Beach, and Melbourne.

Prior to that time, the Doppler radar aboard the NOAA WP-3 Hurricane Hunter aircraft were

critical to evaluating the flight level (10,000 feet) wind fields surrounding the storm. 
69

WSR-57 at Miami

The WSR-57 radar at Coral Gables was a network radar operated by WSFO Miami. Its data

was readily available to the NHC staff. The WSR-57 operated flawlessly prior to the arrival

of Andrew and provided coverage until 4:54 AM EDT, August 24. Shortly thereafter, the

region just outside of the northern edge of the eyewall brought winds gusting to 142 knots (164

mph), and those winds sent the radar dish and support structure tumbling from its mount onto

the roof. The WSR-57 will not be rebuilt.

WSR-74S at West Palm Beach

The local warning radar at WSO West Palm Beach remained operational throughout the

hurricane. The 74S was very useful to the NHC, particularly after the Miami WSR-57 was

lost. The NHC maintained a continuous plot of their eye center fixes as opposed to accessing

the radar and making fixes locally.

WSR-74S at Key West

The network radar located at Key West also was valuable after the WSR-57 was lost at Miami.

Center fixes were tabulated from its observations, similar to that which was done from the

West Palm Beach radar. After Andrew’s landfall, a communications outage prevented remote

viewing of the imagery.

WSR-88D at Melbourne

The new Doppler radar at WSO Melbourne was an important tool for WSFO and NHC

operations during Andrew. Finding I.I.3: The precision, range, and refinement offered

by the WSR-88D allowed for precise location not only of the eye but also, long before

landfall, of stronger elements in the spiral bands. The ability of the WSO at

Melbourne to observe and report on these small but significant features enabled

them to allay public fears about a potentially approaching hurricane. 

 

As the hurricane eyewall moved ashore, however, the WSR-88D data was used even more.

Once the WSR-57 failed, WSFO and NHC used the Principal User Processor (PUP) drop to the

WSR-88D (located in NHC) to monitor the storm’s progress. The WSR-88D also provided

valuable information otherwise unavailable to NHC on powerful eyewall characteristics. It

tracked the eye continuously from 9:56 PM EDT, August 23, through 4:27 PM EDT, August 24

(figures 11 through 14).

Recommendation I.I.3: Efforts by the NWS, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), and the Department of Defense (DOD) to deploy the WSR-88D nationwide

must continue. In addition, NOAA needs to assure staffing of its NWS Doppler radar

equipped offices with properly trained personnel in order to take best advantage

of this powerful data source.
70

Figure 11 & WSO Melbourne, Florida, WSR-88D composite reflectivity image of Hurricane

Andrew taken at 0156 UTC, August 24, 1992 (9:56 PM EDT, August 23).
71

Figure 12 & WSO Melbourne, Florida, WSR-88D composite reflectivity image of Hurricane

Andrew taken at 0901 UTC (5:01 AM EDT), August 24, 1992.
72

Figure 13 & WSO Melbourne, Florida, WSR-88D composite reflectivity image

of Hurricane Andrew taken at 1157 UTC (7:57 AM EDT), August 24, 1992.
73

Figure 14 & WSO Melbourne, Florida, WSR-88D composite reflectivity image of Hurricane

Andrew taken at 2027 UTC (4:27 PM EDT), August 24, 1992.
74

Rawinsonde Observations

Three special rawinsonde observations were requested by NHC during Hurricane Andrew at

WSOs West Palm Beach, Key West, and Tampa Bay. The soundings were released at

1800 UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) (2 PM EDT) on August 23, 0600 UTC (2 AM EDT)

August 24, and 1800 UTC (2 PM EDT) August 24. 

Surface Observations

Surface observations are taken at a wide variety of heights above the surface and are reported

in a variety of formats. Observation heights vary from as little as 2 meters above the surface

to as high as 40 meters above the surface. Also, they may be instantaneous readings, they

may be averaged over a minute, or they may be up to 10-minute averages. Normalizing these

data is requisite to any interpretation. Finding I.I.4: Wind observations are taken at

varying heights and with different sampling strategies, making the determination

of winds during a severe storm difficult to assess. Recommendation I.I.4: The Office

of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology should continue to work with the

various Federal agencies to ensure that wind observation adjustments are

standardized for height and sampling interval variations to ensure consistency of

data.

Observations of wind, pressure, rainfall, and tides were collected from a wide variety of sources

prior to and during Andrew. The National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) operates an array of CMAN platforms and data buoys in the coastal waters east and west of Florida. Numerous tide

gauges are located along Florida’s east and west coast. Manual surface observations are taken

both from official NWS sites in Florida and from unofficial locations, such as emergency

management facilities, airport sites, and other municipal installations. The official

observations were available in real-time but acquiring many of the unofficial observations

required a call for data. The HRD of the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological

Laboratory (AOML) made such a request, through the auspices of the NHC, and collected a

variety of data (see appendix A, tables A.1 and A.2). When analyzing the data, they used

standard methods to correct for sampling variation. It is important to note that these data,

although acquired in real-time, are not available to NWS offices in real-time.

Surface Observations from NWS Offices

The NWS routinely collects official surface observations in south Florida at WSOs in Key West,

West Palm Beach, and Tampa Bay. Official observations for the Miami area are taken at

Miami International Airport. Except for Miami, surface observations were recorded without

interruption throughout Andrew. However, many instruments in the Miami area failed.

Miami International Airport observations were not reliable due to instrument failure. Wind

speeds were estimated. In fact, two NWS/FAA maintained anemometers failed during

Hurricane Andrew: at NHC and at Tamiami Airport. Out of 23 known anemometers from the

local and Federal government (5 NWS/FAA), industry, and university sectors, complete records

were obtained from 2, partial records were available from 17, and no records from 4. Four sites

were disabled in advance of the storm, nine lacked recording capability or experienced
75

recording failures, three had cross-arm problems as described below, three had guy wire/mast

failures, and two lost power. 

Finding I.I.5: Many wind observation sites failed not because of a failure of the

instrument but because of the manner in which the support hardware was

constructed and assembled. At the NHC and Tamiami Airport sites, the cross arm conduit

pipe had no locking coupling to prevent it from unthreading from the main tower coupling

during high winds. This is especially disturbing because of the large installed data base of

similar F420 style anemometers throughout the NWS and FAA. It is believed that a low cost

retrofit solution may exist by using commonly available conduit hardware. Recommendation

I.I.5: The NWS and FAA need to inventory their F420 anemometer installations in

hurricane-threatened areas. The NWS and FAA should consider retrofitting suspect

F420 sites with a locking cross arm prior to the 1994 hurricane season.

Furthermore, the NWS Automatic Surface Observing System (ASOS) program office

should investigate the potential for failures in the ASOS wind mast and sensors

during high wind episodes.

At NHC in Coral Gables, an anemometer is located on the roof. That instrument, which

recorded wind gusts to 142 knots (164 mph) just before 5 AM EDT, August 24, was damaged

at 5:17 AM and failed completely at 5:45 AM. Since the instrument is not at a standard

height, its measurements may not be considered reliable before being statistically reduced to

standard height. A complete listing of all observed meteorological extremes from Andrew is

supplied as appendix A, tables A.1 and A.2.

Other Surface Observations

Wind and Pressure

Observations of wind and pressure were collected from two sites in the Bahamas: Harbour

Island and Nassau. The Harbor Island site was very near the landfall of Andrew as it

migrated across the northwest Bahamas. The lowest observed pressure was 935 mb. At that

time, a wind of 120 knots was observed for an unknown duration. Both wind and pressure

were likely more extreme since the wind instrumentation failed shortly thereafter and

observation of the barometer was not constant. When the storm made landfall in south

Florida, no fewer than a dozen observations were available, half on the east coast and half on

the west coast. Several other observations were made available post-event. The extremes

from each of those sites are documented in appendix A, table A.2.

C-MAN and Buoy Observations

C-MAN and buoy data were collected routinely until many of the sensors failed under extreme

conditions. The most prominent of these observations came from the Fowey Rocks CMAN&latitude 25.6EN, longitude 80.1EW. Its last observation at 4 AM EDT, August 24,

included an 8-minute average wind of 123 knots (141 mph) with a gust of 147 knots (169 mph).

Shortly thereafter, the equipment became inoperable. It was discovered with its mast bent

over at a 90E angle. Since the lowest observed pressure was 967.5 mb when failure
76

occurred, even though the eye of Andrew passed about 10 miles south of Fowey Rocks, there

remained another 10 to 15 mb of pressure fall during which wind was not recorded. The wind

measurements were made on a mast 43 meters (141 feet above the water). When converted

to a WMO-standard (World Meteorological Organization), 10-meter height for the 2-minute

standard, the NDBC used a figure of 108 knots (124 mph) for this site.

Unofficial Reports

Unofficial weather reports are provided in appendix A, table A.2. The process of screening

these data for accuracy, especially the wind and pressure data, is still in progress. Wind

instrumentation from Perrine was wind tunnel tested at Clemson University for accuracy.

After accounting for a 16.5 percent error, a peak wind gust of 154 knots (177 mph) was found.

Instruments recording the lowest south Florida pressure readings were pressure chamber

tested. Analysis of that data indicates that 922 mb was the lowest verified south Florida

landfall pressure from Andrew. 

Some sites that could have provided valuable wind and pressure observations failed to do so.

These sites are situated at the location of the eye landfall. One such observation site,

Homestead AFB, performed a total power-down prior to evacuating the base. Similarly, AOML

removed the wind equipment prior to the storm’s landfall because of its adjacency to an atrium

skylight. Had the skylight failed, the interior of the facility would have been at great risk.

Finding I.I.6: Valuable wind and pressure observations were lost when the datagathering systems were powered down or removed before Andrew’s landfall.

Recommendation I.I.6: Agencies with meteorological data-gathering equipment in

the path of a hurricane should be encouraged to continue the data collection

process throughout the event.

Storm Tide and Storm Surge Observations

Two terms, "storm tide" and "storm surge," often are used in measuring the increase in water

level. Storm surge is water height above normal tide level. Storm tide is the water height

relative to NGVD, the mean sea level of 1929. In the Bahamas, a maximum storm tide of

about 25 feet was measured at Current Island, with probable wave effects superimposed.

Along the coast of south Florida, there were several reliable data collection sites each

measuring storm tide. In fact, literally hundreds of high water marks were measured by

USACE and FEMA. Figure 8 combines many of those for representative values. The highest

storm tide measured in south Florida was 16.9 feet at the Burger King World Headquarters

in East Perrine.

Rainfall Observations

Despite powerful winds, many rain gauges in south Florida survived and provided reliable,

representative data. Although Andrew was fast moving and, therefore, a fairly "dry" storm

precipitation-wise, it generated rainfall totals of more than 7 inches in some locales across

south Florida. The highest totals in south Florida included 7.79 inches (site-124 in Broward

County) and 7.41 inches (site-21A in Dade County). Most other totals were between 2 and 5

inches. Flooding was not a major problem with Andrew in south Florida.
77

PART II

LOUISIANA
78
79

CHAPTER II.A

BACKGROUND

Description of the Disaster Area

The State of Louisiana is bordered on the east by the Mississippi and Pearl Rivers and on the

west by the Sabine River and Texas. The southern part of the state is situated entirely within

the Gulf Coastal Plain. Louisiana covers an area of about 49,000 square miles, approximately

16 percent or 7,400 square miles of which is covered by water in the form of lakes, sloughs,

bayous, and wetlands. 

South-central Louisiana, where Andrew made landfall, was most affected by the storm.

Fortunately, the hurricane began to weaken just prior to landfall southwest of Morgan City.

The damage was far less dramatic in Louisiana than what was seen in Florida, but the

damage was severe nevertheless.

Population

The affected parishes cover almost the entire southern half of Louisiana. The population of

this area is more than 1,600,000 of which nearly 500,000 reside in Orleans Parish.

The economy of the affected area is typical of the state as a whole, being highly diversified with

emphasis on petro-chemical production, a mix of light and heavy manufacturing, commercial

fishing, timber and forestry-related products, and agriculture.

Climate

The entire State of Louisiana is subject to severe, frequent flooding. Heavy rains may occur

at any time of the year but are more likely in April and May or October and November as a

result of warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico overriding cooler, drier air.

From June through September, slowly moving tropical storms and hurricanes can move inland

and deposit excessive rain over large areas. Louisiana is crisscrossed with numerous large and

small streams, bayous, and other watercourses emptying into its major river systems. The

runoff from these systems eventually discharges into the Gulf of Mexico. The relatively flat

terrain is not conducive to rapid runoff so any inundation may be protracted and severe. 

Average annual rainfall varies from about 44 inches in the northern sections to more than 64

inches along the coast. Most precipitation is from thunderstorms, although of short-duration,
80

 high intensity non-thunderstorm rains occur when tropical cyclones form in or move into and

across the Gulf of Mexico to affect Louisiana. 

Topography

Louisiana is most renowned for its bayous and waterways which account for much of the

state’s southern topography. Numerous barrier islands punctuate the coastline but are utilized

primarily as game refuges.

The terrain of Louisiana is flat to gently rolling, ranging in elevation from sea level in the

south to more than 500 feet above sea level in the north. Much of southeast Louisiana, notably

the Greater New Orleans area, is at or below sea level. This densely populated region of the

state is protected by a network of levees. If ever breached, the entire area would be

temporarily reclaimed by the gulf. 

Hurricane Vulnerability

Statistics compiled by NHC show that Louisiana ranks third behind Florida and Texas with

respect to hurricane vulnerability. Louisiana is most susceptible to major hurricanes during

the months of August and September. Louisiana has been struck by hurricanes 25 times since

1899; 12 of these were classified as major. About one-third of the most deadly hurricanes to

strike the United States have directly or indirectly struck the state.

The following are some of the more prominent statistics about Louisiana hurricane

climatology.

 The last major hurricane (category 3 or greater) this century was Carmen in 1974.

 The deadliest hurricane this century to strike Louisiana was Audrey in 1957, killing

390 persons in Louisiana and Texas. The deadliest storm to strike Louisiana was the

Cheniere Caminada storm of 1893 (near Grand Isle) which killed between 1,500 and

2,000 people.

 Betsy (1965) and Bob (1979) were the last deadly hurricanes to strike Louisiana.

Betsy also proved to be one of the most costly in the Nation, ranking third behind

Andrew and Hugo. Curiously, Andrew followed a track with some similarities to

Betsy.
81

CHAPTER II.B

SUMMARY OF PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS

Weather Service Forecast Offices/Weather Service Offices

(WSFO/WSO)

WSFO Slidell 

WSFO Slidell is respected by local parish officials and the media throughout their parish

warning area of responsibility. They conduct a comprehensive warning and preparedness

program. Under the direction of Area Manager Bill Crouch, the WSFO conducts numerous

preparedness classes, training exercises, and annual coordination meetings with local officials,

the media, and volunteer groups. During the 6 months preceding Hurricane Andrew, the WPM

focal point provided state DEM and parish Offices of Emergency Management (OEM) with

emergency planning assistance. In addition to conducting awareness seminars, the WPM focal

point provided technical assistance. The WPM focal point installed SLOSH software at several

parishes OEMs and trained key OEM staff on its proper use. 

The first of these events occurred during Severe Weather Awareness Week, February 10-14,

1992. During that week, various aspects of the severe weather warning program were

reviewed and tested by the NWS, the local emergency management officials, and the media.

Prior to the 1992 hurricane season, the WSFO coordinated the joint visit of Dr. Robert Sheets,

Director NHC, and Harry Hassel, Director Southern Region, NWS. This visit was part of Dr.

Sheet’s annual hurricane preparedness tour. Dr. Sheets presented a press briefing to the New

Orleans news media. In addition, Dr. Sheets and Director Hassel, and Meteorologist in

Charge, Bill Crouch, appeared with Brian Giddings, Orleans Parish OEM Director, on cable

television discussing hurricane preparedness.

A second campaign promoted hurricane awareness. Historically, hurricanes have been the

most devastating natural hazard to affect the state. The WSFO staff, led by WPM Focal Point

Michael Koziara, worked closely with Louisiana’s DEM to coordinate Hurricane Preparedness

Week, May 18-24.

An integral part of these campaigns is the ability to make an adequate number of awareness

and preparedness brochures available to local emergency officials and the public. Currently,

NWS offices do not have access to adequate numbers of brochures. Finding II.B.1: There

is an insufficient supply of safety and preparedness materials in support of NWS

field offices, local emergency preparedness officials, and the public. Both local NWS

officials and local emergency managers feel that the limited number of available brochures

restricts their overall effectiveness within their respective preparedness programs. In an effort

to help offset these limited brochure resources, NWS offices have sought out other ways of

acquiring additional supplies of publications. One approach used by NWS offices was to

provide negatives of brochures that could be reprinted by either public or private sector groups.

Unfortunately, these efforts have met with only limited success. Recommendation II.B.1:

NOAA and the Department of Commerce should increase their support for
82

developing, printing, and distributing high quality preparedness and awareness

materials. Present cooperative efforts with other agencies and the private sector

to develop and distribute awareness and preparedness materials should be

increased.

During the 6 months preceding Hurricane Andrew, the WSFO provided the state DEM and

parish OEMs with emergency planning assistance. In addition to conducting awareness

seminars, WSFO staff provided technical assistance. WSFO staff installed SLOSH software

at several parish OEMs and successfully trained key OEM staff in its proper use. 

The major event of Louisiana’s 1992 Hurricane Awareness Program was a hurricane exercise

called "Malinda." The WSFO staff provided technical assistance in developing weather and

hurricane forecast and track data for the exercise. The Hurricane "Malinda" exercise provided

Louisiana’s OEM a means for testing and evaluating southeast Louisiana’s hurricane

preparedness and response capabilities. A deficiency that was evident in both awareness

campaigns was the lack of participation by the print media during these events.

This hurricane exercise proved very beneficial both to the NWS and the Louisiana OEM. It

showed that a new level of commitment had been achieved. New coordination capabilities

were fully tested and evaluated, and a realistic evaluation of southeast Louisiana’s evacuation

needs and capabilities was performed.

The Hurricane "Malinda" exercise identified weaknesses in the communications and

dissemination capabilities of Louisiana’s OEM. During periods of high density data traffic, the

OEM had difficulty redistributing information in a timely manner. Although identified as a

problem, not enough funding or time was available for any correction action prior to Hurricane

Andrew.

The evacuation simulation also confirmed that portions of southeast Louisiana are not capable

of efficiently evacuating. One obvious problem is the need for lead times in excess of 50 hours

for some southeast Louisiana parishes. The current state of the science in hurricane

forecasting does not allow for such warning lead times with a high degree of confidence. Other

problem areas included transportation choke points and the inability of northern parishes to

accommodate evacuees from southern parishes.

The WSFO also meets with groups that are highly vulnerable to hurricanes, such as the

petrochemical industry. WSFO staff addressed several awareness and preparation meetings

for offshore oil companies prior to Hurricane Andrew. These meetings supplied general

hurricane information dealing with preparedness and evacuation. Other groups which the

WSFO routinely supports are the U.S. Coast Guard and the American Society of Military

Engineers. The WSFO staff gives periodic hurricane awareness presentations. These

presentations are part of coordination meetings which provide a forum to review preparedness

plans and exchange information and ideas.

As Andrew approached the east Florida coast, WSFO Slidell’s warning and preparedness staff

were made available to the media for interviews and presentations. These interviews gave the

public a steady stream of information about Hurricane Andrew and its potential effect on

Louisiana. 
83

WSO Baton Rouge

WSOs performed their warning and preparedness responsibilities in an exemplary manner.

At many offices, the local MIC or Official in Charge (OIC) is the focal point for preparedness

activities within the WSO county or parish warning area (CWA). John Moseley, MIC, WSO

Baton Rouge, conducts all preparedness efforts. Mr. Moseley did make himself available for

coordination visits to parishes within his CWA prior to the hurricane season. The Disaster

Survey Team felt that more preparedness work could have been accomplished outside of Baton

Rouge Parish. Interviews with parish officials indicated that it was not totally clear as to the

availability of the NWS during major weather events. The perception that the WSO would be

too busy during major weather events caused some parishes to feel that it would have been an

imposition on their part to call the WSO. One parish chose to post their own warning for this

very reason and never contacted the WSO. This decision prompted the activation of the local

siren warning system. The local parish officials stated that many residents responded by

making use of available sheltering in response to the tornado threat.

Having only a limited number of available staff hours, WSOs must make the best use of their

available time. Any scheduled meetings must be extremely well coordinated. It is imperative

that all groups and agencies that participate in any local warning or preparedness programs

be present. Participants at these coordination meetings typically include the various media

outlets, sheriff’s officials, local city or parish police officials, spotter and amateur radio network

representatives, and parish emergency preparedness officials. 

The frequency of these coordination meetings is dependent upon the number of parishes within

the office’s warning area of responsibility. Typically, these coordination meetings are held

annually, but in some instances, groups may meet several times during the year. At these

meetings, NWS officials provide a review of local hurricane climatological information and an

outlook for the upcoming hurricane season. They also pass on information pertaining to NWS

program changes which might affect local warning and preparedness programs. Ultimately,

this group reviews and evaluates communication and dissemination capabilities, the readiness

of parish spotter networks, the need for NWS training support, and issues concerning

community preparedness and evacuation.

During the days prior to Andrew’s making landfall in Louisiana, Mr. Moseley made himself

available to the various local media outlets. These contacts continued through the events of

Andrew and proved to be extremely beneficial in preparing the local populace for the impact

of Andrew. 

WSO Lake Charles

The Lake Charles WSO has a very active warning and preparedness program. The WSO also

does not have a dedicated warning preparedness specialist. All preparedness efforts are

accomplished, as time permits, by the MIC or his representative. In addition to routine

presentations and annual coordination meetings, MIC David McIntosh is very proactive in

southwest Louisiana natural hazards efforts.

In the months following Louisiana’s Severe Weather Awareness Week, a table top exercise was

developed which involved the WSO. The exercise took place May 11, 1992, and was a first for
84

the WSO. This table top exercise focused on the hazards of tornadoes, ultimately evaluating

NWS and local community plans and capabilities during such events.

The WSO also coordinated the visit of Dr. Robert Sheets, NHC Director, to the Southwest

Louisiana Hurricane Preparedness Conference. More local officials and media representatives

attended this year’s event than ever before. The collective efforts of Dr. Sheets, David

McIntosh, and Harry Hassel (Director, NWS Southern Region) were rewarded by the

presentation of keys to the city of Lake Charles.

Parishes of southwest Louisiana, with assistance from the state DEM, have established the

Southwest Louisiana Hurricane Task Force. This Task Force was developed to provide the

citizens of southwest Louisiana with a comprehensive and coordinated effort in hurricane

mitigation and response. Mr. McIntosh was asked to chair the Evacuation Committee of this

Task Force. This affirms the confidence that local officials have in the Weather Service and

its local officials. In addition, Mr. McIntosh has been active in the Sabine Basin Task Force,

which addresses issues concerning flooding.

Each of these NWS offices have come very near to achieving their goal of being the official

technical resource for their communities in matters dealing with natural hazards. Part of the

NWS’s modernization and restructuring effort includes the new Warning Coordination

Meteorologist position. This position will provide a full time warning coordination and hazard

awareness liaison for the NWS to the community.

Preparedness by the Media

Print Media

The print media were extremely active during Andrew, providing their readership with not

only general information on Andrew but also preparedness information. The print media

across south Louisiana worked closely with NWS and EM officials in providing the public with

detailed and updated information.

 

As it became more evident that Andrew would be a major event for the Louisiana coast,

proclamations and declarations were headlined in local newspapers. An excellent example of

how the print media responded to the hurricane threat can be seen in the approach taken by

the Daily Iberian. The paper responded to the ordered evacuation by headlining the parish

council’s decision, "Iberia Parish Evacuation Urged." In the article that followed, the Iberian’s

readership was provided with the latest information on Hurricane Andrew, details of what the

effect of Andrew could be, various preparedness and safety tips, and evacuation information.

Finding II.B.2: The local print media is more reactive in community preparedness

than proactive. Historically, in south Louisiana, the print media has not actively

participated in preseason hurricane preparedness efforts, such as awareness

campaigns. On the other hand, during the 72 hours prior to Andrew, they were

extremely effective in providing their readership with detailed preparedness

information. Recommendation II.B.2: NWS offices in south Louisiana need to

develop stronger cooperative relationships with the print media to enhance their

involvement in the hazards awareness and mitigation program.
85

Electronic Media

The electronic media played an enormous role in preparedness efforts. The DST felt that the

graphic images of south Florida hurricane damage provided gulf residents with a clearer

picture of Andrew’s destructive potential. It was felt that had Andrew not made landfall in

south Florida, the public response in the gulf might not have been as great. Specials prior to

the hurricane season and spot announcements helped educate the local populace in hazard

mitigation, preparedness, and response. Each NWS office has developed their own special

partnership with local media outlets, providing the ample coverage and personal interviews

as Andrew moved through the gulf toward Louisiana. The NWS should continue to nurture

the cooperative relationships which were in place during Andrew. 

WSOs Baton Rouge and Lake Charles provided numerous television interviews prior to and

during hurricane Andrew’s approach. These interviews were conducted at the local studios or,

as in the case of WSO Baton Rouge, some broadcasts were done from the parish EOC. 

On August 24 after Andrew had ravaged Florida, local offices were asked to participate in

expanded segments of local news and weather broadcasts throughout the evening. These

presentations provided details of Andrew’s effect on Florida and its potential for Louisiana.

As Andrew approached the Louisiana coast, the MICs or their representatives made

themselves available for interviews on both radio and television.

The smaller media markets, such as Baton Rouge, took advantage of the NWS presence within

their local area. As the threat of Andrew became more of a reality, these media outlets began

to focus on preparedness and response. They began conducting interviews from the parish

EOC. During these sessions, both the NWS and local EMs provided viewers information on

Andrew and how to prepare for Andrew’s landfall. Proper evacuation procedures were

reviewed and evacuation recommendations broadcast. Similar interviews and broadcasts were

disseminated via radio and cable.

In larger media markets, such as Greater New Orleans, local affiliates made vast use of their

station’s meteorological support staff. Although most were done with their local staff, some

interviews were conducted with the Slidell office.

Local Emergency Management 

Local emergency management officials throughout south Louisiana actively prepare for each

upcoming hurricane season, always assuming that the next hurricane could be the "Big One."

This heightened level of awareness to the hurricane threat has prompted the development of

hurricane task forces that practice and prepare for a major hurricane. 

Finding II.B.3: Local emergency managers in south Louisiana were very proactive,

taking the early initiative in dealing with Hurricane Andrew. Some south Louisiana

parishes have special lead time requirements for safe evacuation. Since today’s hurricane

forecasting capability does not allow for such long lead times with a high degree of confidence

for the evacuation of these parishes, emergency managers must understand that they need to

initiate evacuation well before watches and warnings are issued by the National Hurricane

Center. Comprehensive hurricane evacuation plans are currently in place for southeast

Louisiana which aid local EMs in making well thought out decisions. Tools, such as the
86

Garden City, Louisiana, community relief efforts

SLOSH computer display and various hurricane tracking programs, were actively used by

managers prior to Andrew. These products gave managers the information necessary to make

decisions to open shelters, to call on various hurricane response resources, or to evacuate.

Recommendation II.B.3: The NWS must continue working closely with local

emergency managers to ensure that together they promote a unified awareness

program which elicits the desired public response.
87

CHAPTER II.C

NWS CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND

BACKUP ARRANGEMENTS

Weather Service Forecast Offices/Weather Service Offices

(WSFO/WSO)

WSO Lake Charles

As Hurricane Andrew made its way into the Gulf of Mexico early on the morning of August 24,

WSO Lake Charles’ weather support activities were stepped up. Duty schedules were modified

from 8-hour shifts to 12-hour shifts, and staffing for each shift was increased. 

Generators used as a backup to the office’s commercial power supply were tested and readied

for use. These generators would ensure that the limited weather instrumentation and office’s

full complement of communications equipment would remain operational. The electronics

technicians (ET) also checked and calibrated all weather instruments during the hours prior

to Andrew’s landfall. In fact, the electronics staff worked 12-hour shifts and provided 24-hour

support as Andrew tracked across the gulf and into Louisiana.

Once Andrew moved into the gulf, NHC requested that gulf region field offices participating

in the NWS rawinsonde program begin launching intermediate balloon releases. Beginning

August 24 at 1 PM CDT, Lake Charles began launching rawinsondes every 6 hours. This

schedule remained in place through 7 PM CDT, August 27.

Approximately 18 hours prior to Andrew’s landfall in Louisiana, the WSO activated their local

spotter and amateur radio networks. The primary purpose for activating the amateur radio

network was to ensure that a means of communication remained available to the WSO

throughout the event.

WSO Baton Rouge

The WSO Baton Rouge response was similar to that of Lake Charles. Once the Louisiana

coast was placed under a watch, the office stepped up their level of support. WSO Baton Rouge

modified their operational shift rotation from three 8-hour shifts to three 12-hour shifts. These

new 12-hour shifts were staggered to allow for overlapping. This approach helped preserve

operational continuity during shift changes.

The WSO Baton Rouge electronics staff conducted preventative maintenance routines on all

meteorological equipment. This ensured that all equipment was properly calibrated and

operationally ready well before Andrew’s landfall. 
88

Although unsuccessful, WSO Baton Rouge made every effort to secure additional generators

to back up meteorological equipment not connected to their office backup system. It is evident

through these actions that these WSOs were prepared for almost any situation. Every effort

was made to secure necessary resources and to have the appropriate procedures in place prior

to Andrew’s landfall. 

WSFO Slidell

Backup Procedures. As in Miami, WSFO Slidell, in accordance with procedures established

by NWS Southern Region Headquarters, invoked emergency backup procedures as Hurricane

Andrew bore down on the Louisiana coastline. In anticipation of a possible complete failure

of the WSFO, appropriate offices designated as their backup were alerted to prepare for such

a possibility. 

As Andrew entered the gulf on August 24, WSFO Slidell initiated shift changes that included

increasing tours of duty from 8 hours to 12 hours. In addition, two meteorologists were added

to each of the two shifts to support a dedicated hurricane forecast desk. All questions and

interviews dealing with the issues concerning Hurricane Andrew were handled by these

meteorologists. In addition, extra staff was brought in to provide operational support to the

marine and public service programs.

In support of the office’s data-gathering responsibilities, the office began releasing rawinsondes

every 6 hours to supplement the ongoing reconnaissance of aircraft, satellite, and radar.

Meteorological technicians also worked 12-hour shift rotation for a number of days prior to

Andrew. During Andrew, the need for increased radar surveillance was realized, and each

shift had an extra radar operator assigned. The WSFO placed a meteorologist at the Greater

New Orleans EOC during Hurricane Andrew. The NWS is not now, nor is it projected to be,

staffed for such an arrangement. This meteorologist provided the New Orleans EOC with

technical assistance. This support was well received by city and parish officials operating from

the EOC and should be maintained in some form. The WSFO should work with the city to

create an arrangement similar to the one used by Dade County and NHC/WSFO Miami. This

should, if available, include space in the WSFO for media and local officials to be routinely

briefed. Additionally, a coordination hotline should be installed so that EOC officials can

interact with NWS staff and officials. 

The electronics staff at the WSFO was activated to 24-hour status, and at least one ET was

on site at all times. During Andrew, ETs worked 12-hour shifts. Prior to Andrew’s landfall,

all equipment and backup equipment was checked and calibrated.

As Andrew moved toward south Florida, the WSFO began an active informational campaign

notifying local and state emergency management officials of the potential threat this storm

might have on Louisiana. The WSFO began these messages during the day on Saturday,

August 22. Soon after Andrew had made landfall on the Florida coast, Bill Crouch, MIC,

WSFO Slidell, coordinated with General Stroud, Director, Louisiana’s DEM, to organize a

meeting of south Louisiana parish officials well in advance of Andrew’s Louisiana landfall.

This meeting provided parish officials with the latest information on Andrew and served as the

first of several coordination meetings to formulate a coordinated preparedness and recovery
89

effort in response to the storm. Follow-up coordination calls between the WSFO hurricane

coordinator and state and local officials continued throughout the events of Hurricane Andrew.

Southern Region Headquarters (SRH) and the River Forecast

Center (RFC)

Southern Region Headquarters, Fort Worth, Texas

Early on Monday, August 24, as the hurricane was moving across the southern tip of Florida,

actions were taken to begin adding staff to the middle gulf coast offices where the next threat

was anticipated. Gulf coast offices were provided additional temporary staff support as follows:

Victoria, TX & 2 meteorological technicians

Galveston, TX & 1 meteorologist and

1 meteorological technician

Beaumont, TX & 2 meteorological technicians

Mobile, AL & 1 meteorological technician

Houston, TX & 1 electronics technician

Fort Worth RFC, TX & 1 hydrologist

River Forecast Center Slidell

The RFC overlapped their staff so that they could access data as it became available and

provide the necessary support to the various weather offices within their region for hydrologic

responsibility. Twenty-four-hour support by the RFC was not immediately implemented. It

was not until the evening before Andrew’s landfall that expanded hydrologic support was

initiated. On the evening of August 25, RFC staff began and maintained a 24-hour hydrologic

watch over the region for which they have responsibility. This expanded support continued

through August 27. During this period, at least two hydrologists were on station at all hours

of the day.

Contingency Planning. A question which was revisited was "Are NWS field sensors and

field offices built to the specifications needed to ensure their survivability in a major

hurricane?" During Hurricane Hugo, the roof of the Charlotte Weather Service Office was

nearly lost. A similar question may be asked in Miami. Could the minimally hardened facility

of the WSFO and NHC have survived a direct hit from Andrew? Indeed, how survivable are

most gulf coast NOAA/NWS facilities? NOAA/NWS structures and remote sensing equipment

are currently not designed to survive the pounding from a major hurricane. Many are cinder

block structures and are susceptible to wind damage from aerial projectiles. As the

NOAA/NWS moves forward with its modernization and restructuring efforts and builds new

facilities and installs its next generation of remote sensors, they must not compromise facility

survivability or employee safety to cost considerations.
90

This damage at the Petroleum Transfer Depot, Cocodrie, Louisiana (located

south of Dulac), was caused by the combination of wind and surge.
91

CHAPTER II.D

SUMMARY OF NWS WATCHES, WARNINGS,

AND ADVISORIES

National Hurricane Center

Watches and Warnings

As soon as Andrew crossed south Florida, NHC began to focus on the next possible landfall.

The first advisory to mention a possible landfall on the northern gulf coast was issued at 8 AM

CDT, Monday, August 24. The advisory stated that a hurricane watch was posted from

Mobile, Alabama, to Sabine Pass, Texas. By this issuance, residents had 43 hours of lead time

prior to Andrew making landfall (figure 5). Hurricane Andrew Advisory Number 35, issued

at 5 PM EDT, August 24, upgraded that area from Pascagoula, Mississippi, to Vermilion Bay,

Louisiana, to a warning. Table A.6 of appendix A lists all watches and warnings posted for the

northern gulf coast.

In several situations, the strike probability tables provided sufficient guidance and confidence

to initiate a fast response. The ability to launch an early response allowed emergency

managers time to conduct preparedness and, if necessary, evacuation activities. Landfall

strike probabilities were used by nearly all state and local agencies and were considered one

of the most important elements of their decisionmaking process.

Watch and Warning Lead Times

The 43 hours of watch lead time exceeded the NHC desired minimum lead time target of

36 hours by about 14 percent. This ultimately gave decision makers additional time to

evaluate the threats posed by Hurricane Andrew. The hurricane warning for the northern gulf

coast was issued with Hurricane Advisory Number 35, giving local officials 36 hours of lead

time. 

The most significant changes in Andrew’s track were well anticipated, and the forecast tracks

lie close to the best track shown in figure 1. Overall, the NHC forecast errors for Andrew were

30 percent smaller than the current 10 year average. In part, improvement in both watch and

warning lead times reflect the smaller than average forecast errors. 

Utility of Advisories

As Andrew moved through the gulf toward Louisiana, advisories remained focused on the

storm track and the projected changes in direction and forward speed. The hurricane warning

was posted at 5 PM CDT, Monday, August 24, for a portion of the northern gulf coast. This

first advisory made no mention of storm surge, tornado potential, or flood potential for the area
92

under the warning. Information of this type did not appear in an advisory until the following

morning in Intermediate Advisory Number 37A. Although mentioned in the body of the text,

the mention of these threats lacked sufficient detail and failed to express any true sense of

urgency. However, as the events of Andrew unfolded, the utility of advisory information

increased markedly.

Finding II.D.1: Users of NWS products would like more specific, technical

information to assist them in their decision making process. During user interviews,

many comments were made reflecting the need for more detailed information similar to that

which is given in mesoscale discussions provided by NSSFC supporting the severe weather

program. Users felt that such an approach would provide greater utility and would enhance

their level of confidence in NHC advisories. Recommendation II.D.1: The NHC should

work with users to define what additional information is required and to develop

a means of communicating that information to them.

National Severe Storms Forecast Center (NSSFC)

Severe Weather Watches and Status Reports

As Hurricane Andrew moved into the Gulf of Mexico, NSSFC began issuing discussions and

outlooks for the potential of severe weather along the northern gulf coast. NSSFC began

focusing especially on the tornado threat to the northern gulf coast early on the morning of

August 25. 

The first mention of the potential for severe weather affecting the northern gulf coast was in

the second day Severe Weather Outlook issued at 2 AM CDT, August 24, meaning that it was

expected on August 25. NSSFC provided the field offices and the National Centers with a

constant flow of discreet information. The mesoscale discussion issued at 4:30 AM CDT,

August 24, detailed the features being monitored for possible severe weather potential.

Subsequent discussions and outlooks suggested that Andrew’s interaction with the coastline

created a more volatile situation. 

Over the next 48 hours, NSSFC issued and updated various tornado watch areas in response

to Andrew’s track. As tornado activity increased, NSSFC introduced stronger language into

the text of its posted watches: "THIS IS A PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS SITUATION

WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF VERY DAMAGING TORNADOES. ALSO DANGEROUS

LIGHTNING AND DAMAGING THUNDERSTORM WINDS CAN BE EXPECTED."

Statements such as this heightened the awareness of both the emergency management

community and the public to the urgency of the situation.

Throughout Andrew, NSSFC guidance was extremely proactive. Noteworthy mesoscale

discussions and timely watches were issued during Andrew. These products were well written

and provided the reader with a heightened sense of urgency. The overall feeling of the

Disaster Survey Team was that NSSFC did an exceptional job in providing severe weather

guidance support to NHC, NMC, and NWS field offices along the gulf coast and inland.
93

Weather Service Forecast Offices/Weather Service Offices

(WSFO/WSO)

Severe Weather Warnings and Statements

There is no doubt that reports of tornadoes early Tuesday evening and throughout the night

caused concern and confusion just as Andrew was making landfall. The additional threat of

tornadoes added to an already frightening situation for the residents of south Louisiana.

NWS offices in south Louisiana dealt well with the overall effects of Andrew, but their initial

response to the tornado threat was considered to be slow and reactive in nature by some local

parish officials. Such a perception is understandable since the primary focus of the NWS was

on the overall event of the hurricane. NWS offices in south Louisiana were placing the

greatest emphasis and attention to those elements deemed most likely to occur with a tropical

cyclone. This placed the emphasis on the elements of storm surge, copious rainfall, and

hurricane-force winds. The strong focus on these elements may have contributed to the

perception that NWS offices were too slow in responding to the subsequent severe weather

events.

One parish official felt that, for whatever reason, the NWS was unable to post a timely

warning for the parish during the tornadic outbreak preceding Andrew’s landfall. Based on

information being passed between local parish law enforcement agencies, this official called for

the activation of the parish siren system. This alerted residents to the imminent danger of

nearby tornadoes. Parish officials stated that because of their actions many residents were

alerted to take shelter immediately. This event occurred shortly after the La Place tornado.

NWS offices rely heavily on spotter reports to support the warning decision-making process.

This is especially true during the early stages of tropical severe weather outbreaks. Spotter

networks are crucial to the NWS warning process, especially in data-sparse areas such as

Louisiana.

Tornadoes proved to be a major factor of Andrew’s impact on southern Louisiana and

neighboring Mississippi. During Andrew, Louisiana experienced 14 confirmed tornadoes and

numerous funnel cloud and unconfirmed tornado reports. In neighboring Mississippi, the

severe weather impact was even greater with 25 confirmed tornadoes and a comparable

number of funnel cloud reports and unconfirmed tornado reports. 

A post-event review of tornadoes associated with Hurricane Andrew (Kuhn, WSO Lake

Charles, March 1993) was consistent with previous studies (Novlan and Gray, 1974) in

showing that a majority of tornadoes occurred after the eye of Andrew moved 50 miles inland.

It was during this period that the affected NWS offices issued the majority of their warnings.

The La Place tornado was the lone exception, occurring prior to the landfall of Andrew.

Observed parameters critical to the predicting of severe weather includes rapid storm filling

as occurs with landfalling tropical cyclones. Recent studies cite this as important to tornado

development. The entire gulf region is considered data sparse which seriously impacts the

ability to monitor the changes involved with a filling storm. This can significantly impede a

field office’s initial response capability. Available data networks are further limited by
94

frequency of sampling. In addition, operational limitations of existing conventional radars also

contributed to the perception of a slow response. The new WSR-88D radar network with its

Doppler capabilities will overcome some of the limitations inherent to conventional radars

operating in tropical environments. Strong vertical wind shear in the first kilometer or two

is characteristic of tornadoes associated with hurricanes. Post-storm review has shown that

this characteristic was associated with the tornadoes spawned by Hurricane Andrew. Had the

remote sensing capabilities of wind profilers and the WSR-88D been in place, forecasters may

have been able to provide more timely information.

The threat of severe weather, such as tornadoes, was mentioned early Tuesday, August 25.

The mention of this threat first appeared in early morning HLSs and carried forward in

subsequent statements. On Tuesday evening as the outer fringes of Andrew approached

landfall, spiral rain bands began to advance into south Louisiana, increasing the likelihood of

tornadoes. Although a legitimate concern, no mention of this increased threat to south

Louisiana residents was made in any local statement or NHC advisory, despite having this

information available to field offices through the NSSFC mesoscale discussion issued at 4:25

AM CDT, Tuesday morning. 

At approximately 9:10 PM CDT, Tuesday, August 25, a tornado struck the adjacent areas of

La Place and Reserve, Louisiana, in St. John the Baptist Parish. Two people were killed,

32 injured, and 60 families left homeless. Prior to this time at 7:11 PM CDT, a possible

tornado had been reported to WSO Baton Rouge near the Sunshine Bridge in Ascension

Parish, just west of St. John the Baptist Parish. Throughout Tuesday night and into

Wednesday morning, August 26, various tornado reports were received by the Baton Rouge

office. The HLSs issued by WSFO Slidell and WSO Baton Rouge did not appear to adequately

heighten the threat posed by tornadoes. This was true even after the offices received

additional tornado reports.

Although the WSFO highlighted the occurrence of the La Place tornado in its 10:30 PM CDT

HLS issuance, no warnings or severe weather follow-up statements were issued. The HLS,

issued at 12:30 AM CDT, Wednesday, August 26, for the first time mentioned the increased

chance for further tornado development across southeast Louisiana as Andrew interacted with

the land and slowly weakened. However, it was not until the 7 AM CDT HLS that Slidell went

a step further and noted that tornadoes would be likely across southeast and south-central

Louisiana, some distance from the storm. It was also stated that these tornadoes would be

short lived and difficult to detect by conventional radar. During the 18 hours following the La

Place tornado, a total of eight severe weather warnings were posted by the Baton Rouge and

Slidell offices. Other than through the issuance of HLSs, as follow-up to posted warnings,

there was little additional documentation of these events. Furthermore, the HLSs that

followed these events did not adequately perform their intended function as follow-up

statements to posted warnings. Finding II.D.2: Hurricane local statements were too

closely tied to the issuance of hurricane advisories. As a result, the dissemination

of critical information concerning tornadic events was delayed. Recommendation

II.D.2: The issuance of hurricane local statements should be event driven, rather

than tied exclusively to routine NHC issuances.

During the 18 hours following the La Place tornado, the Baton Rouge office of the NWS issued

three tornado warnings, and the Slidell office issued one severe thunderstorm and four tornado
95

warnings. The text of these warnings indicated that most of these warnings were issued on

the basis of public and trained spotter sightings. Many of the warnings issued lacked one or

more of the elements deemed necessary for a complete warning. Some warnings lacked

reference to the speed of movement, while others lacked the important element of "pathcast."

A "pathcast" alerts the user to the projected path being taken by the storm and identifies

which cities or locations are in harm’s way. The NWS offices could have provided users with

more frequent follow-up statements to the warnings.

Hurricane Local Statements (HLS)

The hurricane is one of nature’s largest and most complex weather events. It possesses a

number of threats both to life and property which makes it one of the most difficult events to

describe. The HLS is the NWS product which is used to accomplish this task. Its purpose is

to complement NHC advisories and to provide detailed, tailored information on local conditions.

Review of HLSs issued during Hurricane Andrew revealed a lack of detail and tailoring which

led to a large degree of redundancy. Many of the HLSs issued failed to achieve their full

purpose. 

The HLS format used by WSFO Slidell provided a means of summarizing critical information

near the beginning of the text. However, as the Andrew event became more complex, this

became less effective. Gradually, data became buried within the HLS text, making it more

difficult to access critical information quickly. Most HLSs issued by the gulf coast NWS offices

during Andrew became too lengthy with time. The HLSs released early in the event were more

effective. These early releases provided better local resolution of the problems posed by

Andrew. They were short, precise, and made relevant local information available to the users.

As the event progressed, HLSs became less effective due to excessive reiteration of NHC,

NSSFC, and RFC information. The most notable change to the effectiveness of the HLS was

the loss of specificity with respect to the impacts that Andrew would have on the local

county/parish warning area. Offices did follow the prescribed format and content as described

in Weather Service Operations Manual Chapter C-41, Hurricane Warnings, but the HLS as

described in C-41 does not fulfill the desired intent of the product and should be reviewed for

needed changes.

Despite these difficulties, the HLSs issued by WSFO Slidell and WSO Lake Charles early on

were effective and gave brief summaries of critical information at the beginning of the

messages. Although not consistent with the HLS format as described in C-41, the HLSs issued

by these offices, especially early on during the storm, provided a much more efficient means

of communicating significant information to their local users. Coastal NWS offices should reevaluate the manner in which data and information are collected and used in the writing of

HLS products. Emphasis should be placed on the use of on-station software, emergency

management information, and remote sensing data to create a highly specific public product.

More details could have been incorporated into the body of the HLSs which were apparently

used as follow-up statements during the peak period of severe weather activity. Such

enhancements would have provided the details necessary for the HLS to adequately substitute

as a follow-up statement for severe weather statements following severe weather warnings.
96

Tangled remnants of what was once a radio tower along U.S. 90, south of

Centreville, Louisiana.

Corrections to HLSs during Andrew were rarely needed. However, on one occasion, an HLS

was corrected. Finding II.D.3: During the peak period of tornado activity, several

reports of tornadoes were highlighted in the HLSs. One of these reports proved to

be erroneous. Rather than issue a corrected HLS, the WSFO issued a special

weather statement to acknowledge the error. This could have caused confusion and

loss of precious time for users during a period of rapidly changing events. In this

case, the use of a special weather statement did not follow NWS correction procedures. Also,

it did not provide adequate assurance that users would take note of the error. The most

effective way to issue a correction is to identify the error and correct it using the proper

product. Recommendation II.D.3: NWS field offices should follow established NWS

formats for issuing corrections.
97

CHAPTER II.E

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION AND

WARNING SERVICES AND

RESPONSE ACTIONS BY EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AND MEDIA

Non-NWS Products Available to Emergency Management

All coastal county emergency managers in the affected region and the Louisiana DEM received

marine advisories from NHC as well as public advisories, HLSs, and tropical cyclone

discussions. Use and timeliness of these products varied greatly from parish to parish. Nearly

all southeast coastal parishes and the state DEM have PC-based software into which marine

advisory forecasts are entered. The southwest coastal parishes have yet to be upgraded.

About half the coastal parishes have GDS4.0, which parishes purchased individually. Prior

to Hurricane Andrew, parishes did not have access to a program named HURREVAC. Since

Andrew, nearly all southeast Louisiana parishes have been provided with and been trained in

the use of HURREVAC.

The use of these software packages is taught to emergency managers in two ways. One

technique is to have the local NWS WPM or WCM provide assistance and technical training

to emergency management officials. The most desired approach for local officials and their

staffs is to participate in the FEMA/NWS-sponsored Hurricane Response and Decision-making

Workshops. Annually, a number of week-long courses are conducted at NHC. These

workshops provide emergency management officials with the background information needed

to use the PC software more effectively. Finding II.E.1: FEMA/NWS-sponsored

Hurricane Response and Decision-making Workshops are conducted only a few

times each year. These workshops are incapable of reaching sufficient numbers of

emergency officials. This limits the effectiveness of the hurricane preparedness

program. Due to the limited number of workshops presented annually, it has become

incumbent on the local NWS offices to provide the necessary training. Despite these efforts,

local officials do not fully utilize the tools and information made available through local offices,

such as WSFO Slidell. Recommendation II.E.1: FEMA and the NWS should increase

the number of annual hurricane workshops to train coastal emergency management

officials.

Interaction between NWS and Emergency Management

Virtually all south Louisiana parishes appeared to have excellent working relationships with

their respective NWS offices and reported varying degrees of interaction with the NWS during

Andrew. The problem of receiving and answering the flood of calls from various governmental

agencies, the media, and the public made it extremely difficult for NWS offices to maintain an
98

effective interaction with emergency managers. WSOs have limited staff and a limited number

of available telephone lines. In addition to coordinating with various state and local law

enforcement agencies, the WSFO provides direct warning support to 16 parishes and a resident

population exceeding one million. WSOs Baton Rouge and Lake Charles support 13 parishes

and a host of local users with less staff and phone lines. Coordination with the various parish

officials, state officials, law enforcement agencies, and the media can quickly saturate local

NWS telephone systems. 

During events such as Andrew, this could severely hamper the NWS’s ability to interact

effectively with state and local officials when short-fused events occur within a major event.

In fact, this was part of the problem which prompted the response of the parish official

described in chapter II.D, paragraph two, of the "Severe Weather Warnings and Statements"

section.

Nevertheless, during Andrew, parishes did an excellent job of coordinating with their local

NWS office. Evidence of this exchange of information and coordination appear within the text

of the HLSs issued during Hurricane Andrew. These statements include reports of severe

weather, flooding, and evacuation information&much of which was provided by the emergency

management community. Local NWS and EM telephone logs also documented the interaction

which took place between the various governmental agencies, the NWS, and the media.

The city of New Orleans, Orleans Parish, is in a unique situation which benefits local parish

officials during hurricane events threatening New Orleans. Finding II.E.2: Due to the

close proximity of the WSFO, an agreement with the city allows for a dedicated

meteorologist to be dispatched from the WSFO to the local Emergency Operations

Center (EOC) during hurricane events which may threaten the city. This interaction

is very similar to the interaction between Dade County, Florida, and NHC. The primary

difference between these arrangements is that in Florida, the county officials perform out of

NHC; whereas in Louisiana, the WSFO assigns a meteorologist to the EOC. In Louisiana, this

form of interaction, although limited in scope, is lauded by emergency managers for providing

a stabilizing influence on the EOC. The ability of the assigned meteorologist to interpret

weather information and control rumors was of utmost importance to state and city officials

during Andrew. Recommendation II.E.2: Appropriate NWS staff should be dedicated

to work with emergency management officials during major hazardous weather

events.

Impact of Watches, Warnings, and Probabilities

During Disaster Survey Team interviews with emergency managers, nearly all coastal

emergency managers mentioned the use of probabilities or GDS’s forecast error computations

as they described their preparedness actions. Parish and emergency management officials

periodically received training either by NHC staff or local NWS staff in interpreting and using

marine advisories and other hurricane-related products. However, the emergency managers

still do not make the best use of local NWS meteorologists and the various computer aids

mentioned.

Emergency management officials depend heavily on NHC marine advisories and the

probabilities of landfall strike. Watch and warning issuances typically act as the triggering
99

mechanism for initiating some evacuation response. Due to the longer evacuation clearance

times in some Louisiana parishes, there exists a keen interest in public safety and evacuation.

Many parishes initiated some form of evacuation request or activity well before any warning

was issued. 

Impact of Forecasts and Forecast Errors

As noted above, all parish and state emergency management offices received marine advisories

which included position and intensity forecasts. Officials had the tools available to help them

assess the response implications of the forecasts. The track forecasts turned out to have been

the most valuable.

Andrew’s forward speed was of concern because models implied that Andrew would begin an

unusually rapid slowing of its forward speed&from 18 mph to 8 mph. The magnitude of the

slowing varied greatly between models and was a major concern for NHC and NMC in their

decision-making process. This was difficult to resolve and may have contributed to some of the

timing error of Andrew’s landfall in forecast periods beyond 24 hours. Early forecasts were too

slow in bringing Andrew onshore. Even so, local emergency managers had adequate response

time.

As in Florida, the hurricane intensity forecasts contained the greatest error. NHC intensity

forecasts alerted local officials to the possibility of a category 4 hurricane rather than a rapidly

diminishing category 3. Andrew’s landfall in Louisiana was weaker than expected. All

indications from satellite and final aircraft reconnaissance flights prior to landfall were that

Andrew remained a category 4 hurricane. Andrew’s interaction with an approaching upper

trough and the Louisiana coastline likely had a much greater impact on its intensity than

expected. Andrew eventually made landfall over south Louisiana as a category 3 hurricane

and continued to weaken rapidly as it proceeded inland. Despite these intensity errors, the

information provided was well received and afforded emergency managers the information

necessary to conduct their decision making. Had the hurricane’s intensity forecast been

underforecast, the results might have been more devastating for Louisiana. The NWS’s ability

to accurately forecast intensity changes of hurricanes continues to be a weakness. The NWS

needs to focus more research and development on producing a more reliable hurricane intensity

forecast model.

Evacuation Conditions

The warning posted for the northern gulf coast extended from Pascagoula, Mississippi, west

to Vermilion Bay, Louisiana. The watch area extended east from Pascagoula to Mobile,

Alabama, and west from Vermilion Bay to Sabine, Texas. Table 3 lists the counties and

parishes for which watches and warnings were posted.

As in Florida, numerous counties and parishes were threatened. Local and state emergency

management had to make response decisions as Andrew took aim on the Louisiana coastline.

Initially, the parishes and counties of greatest concern were located immediately along the

southeast Louisiana coastline, including parishes adjacent to Lake Pontchartrain and the three

coastal counties of Mississippi. The parishes of southeast Louisiana have some of the
100

Parish/County Watch Warning

Cameron, LA X

Vermilion, LA X

St. Mary, LA X

Terrebonne, LA X

Lafourche, LA X

Jefferson, LA X

Plaquemines, LA X

St. Bernard, LA X

St. Charles, LA X

St. John the Baptist, LA X

Hancock, MS X

Harrison, MS X

Jackson, MS X

__________________

* This table depicts only coastal watch/warning areas.

Table 3

Watch and Warning Status During Hurricane Andrew*

largest populations at risk and require some of the longest evacuation clearance times

(table 4). Finding II.E.3: Formal evacuation clearance studies for southwest

Louisiana have yet to be completed. Recommendation II.E.3: FEMA and the USACE,

with NWS support, should accelerate their efforts to complete evacuation studies

for all hurricane-prone coastal areas.

Finding II.E.4: In general, coastal residents know that they have a potential storm

surge problem. However, in some highly populated areas, such as Greater New

Orleans, there are preliminary evacuation studies but no proven orderly plan for

the safe and timely evacuation of the entire metropolitan area. Furthermore, the

scope of these studies does not address regional complications which can

compromise orderly evacuation. Despite having a regional plan for the evacuation of New

Orleans, the effectiveness of the plan remains in question. Several problems, such as an

adequate number of efficient evacuation routes, continue to resurface following each exercise.

These issues must be resolved before local officials can be confident of their ability to safely

evacuate the population of Greater New Orleans.
101

Table 4

Southeast Louisiana Regional Clearance Times

Clearanc

Storm Evacuating Time

County Category Population Off Peak Pea

Orleans 1 - 2 19,300 5 hrs 1

4 - 5 441,400 44 hrs 5

Jefferson 1 - 2 33,635 5 hrs 1

4 - 5 371,435 44 hrs 5

Plaquemines 1 - 2 16,410 5 hrs 1

4 - 5 24,135 44 hrs 5

St. Bernard 1 - 2 10,275 5 hrs 1

3 - 5 60,355 44 hrs 5

St. Charles 1 - 2 6,415 6 hrs 

3 - 5 37,410 13 hrs 1

St. John the Baptist 1 - 2 4,910 5 hrs 1

 3 - 5 31,325 35 hrs 3

St. James 1 - 2 3,560 5 hrs 1

3 - 5 17,920 35 hrs 3

Lafourche 1 - 2 28,640 6 hrs 

3 - 5 72,395 13 hrs 1
102

The Greater New Orleans area, which includes Orleans, St. Tammany, St. Bernard, Jefferson,

St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, and north Plaquemines Parishes, has the highest population

density along the gulf coast and is one of the most vulnerable. The Greater New Orleans area

physically sits 5 to 10 feet below sea level and is protected by a network of levees. It is

estimated that the existing levee system would protect the Greater New Orleans area from

category 1 and 2 hurricanes. The levee system is rated to survive most category 3 storms and

some select category 4 storms but no category 5 storms. Areas outside of the levee system are

easily flooded. The degree of inundation is dependent on storm strength and landfall approach.

Most evacuees are anticipated in evacuation plans to go to destinations within their own

parish, to a northern adjacent parish, or, time permitting, to a parish well north of the

endangered area.

Evacuation plans anticipate that a third or fewer of the evacuees will leave the region, going

to points north or inland. Doing so requires that most evacuees use either US 61, I-10, or I-55,

all multilane, limited access highways. Transportation models indicate that congestion will

be extreme on both US 61 and I-55, exiting north from the Greater New Orleans area. Areas

west would use I-49, US 171, or US 165, also multilane highways. Clearance times required

to evacuate residents and seasonal visitors safely are listed in Table 4, Southeast Louisiana

Regional Clearance Times. These longer evacuation clearance times reflect the limited number

of evacuation routes from the Greater New Orleans area and the need for many coastal

residents to evacuate through New Orleans. Despite the fact that New Orleans was within the

warning area, its evacuation response was poor considering the potential threat for loss of life.

Ideally, emergency management officials attempt to have all evacuation requirements

completed prior to the arrival of gale-force winds and the flooding of roadways. Therefore, the

initiation of evacuation must reflect not only the clearance time but also the number of hours

which tropical storm-force winds precede the arrival of the hurricane’s eye. The average

additional time required is about 6 hours. Recommendation II.E.4: FEMA, in concert

with the NWS, should ensure the completion of local evacuation studies and

integrate them into a comprehensive regional evacuation plan. It is hoped that the

results of such a regional study would provide local officials with new response options that

would reduce overall evacuation clearance times.

Evacuation Actions by Local Emergency Management

The state, parish, and city governments have the authority to order evacuation in response to

any imminent threat. Failure to comply, however, carries no penalty.

Over the past 20 years, the State of Louisiana has worked slowly toward the development of

an effective hurricane preparedness program. Their progress was very evident in Andrew.

The Adjutant General for the State of Louisiana oversees the state’s DEM. The Adjutant

General’s staff has been overseeing the DEM for slightly more than a year prior to Andrew.

Despite this short tenure, the General’s staff was aware of the pending situation, in part due

to the excellent on-going working relationship between NWS and DEM officials. As part of a

coordinated effort between the DEM and the NWS, Adjutant General Stroud called a meeting

of NWS, parish, and state officials well before Andrew’s entry into the gulf&a full 5 days before

landfall in Louisiana. Similar planning and coordination sessions would continue through

Andrew.
103

Local parish officials were aggressive in securing access to the various media outlets.

Voluntary evacuation of area residents in nearly all coastal parishes started 2 days prior to

landfall. The second tier parishes, those adjacent to coastal parishes, were not far behind in

calling for voluntary evacuations since they wanted residents to take the threat seriously and

take every precaution, including possible evacuation. Most parishes of south Louisiana

initiated actions similar to those conducted by Iberia Parish.

The first phase initiated by local parish officials was to call together elected officials to

review the situation. The decision was made to call for a Voluntary Evacuation of: 

& low-lying areas.

& areas prone to flooding from heavy rains or storm surge.

& all mobile homes.

& anyone with easy access to safe shelter.

As it became more apparent that the parish was to be affected, a second meeting was

called, and phase two was initiated and a call for a Recommended Evacuation of:

& all mobile homes.

& the area of Iberia Parish south of US 90 and southeast of Louisiana

Highway 14.

& the town of Delcambre.

Approximately 24 hours prior to landfall, elected officials again met, and the decision

was made to call for a Mandatory Evacuation of:

& the area of Iberia Parish south of US 90 and southeast of Louisiana

Highway 14.

& the town of Delcambre.

To some degree, this sequence of events was played out in many of the first and second tier

coastal parishes of south Louisiana as noted in table 5.

Since Hurricane Andrew, it has been estimated that anywhere between 20 and 40 percent of

the local population evacuated following the issuance of warnings and ordered evacuations.

The DST interviewed local emergency management officials from the affected parishes over

the months following Hurricane Andrew. Finding II.E.5: The emergency management

community of southeast Louisiana felt strongly that the fear of looting was partially

responsible for a smaller than expected number of evacuees. It was noted that,

through their contacts with parish residents, they sensed a sincere fear of having their homes

looted should they evacuate. Parish officials felt that the issue of looting should be addressed

within the scope of hurricane preparedness. Local parish officials have conducted
104

Estimate

Parish Recommended Ordered of Evacuees

St. Bernard Yes No 3,000

Orleans Yes&East Bank Yes&West Bank Unknown

Jefferson Yes&West Bank No Unknown

St. Tammany Yes No Unknown

Plaquemines Yes&North Half Yes&South Half 18,000

Lafourche Yes&North Half Yes&South Half Unknown

Terrebonne Yes&North Half Yes&South Half 33,000

St. Charles Yes No Unknown

St. John the Baptist No No Unknown

St. James Yes No 5,000

Assumption Yes No Unknown

St. Mary No Yes 42,000

St. Martin No Yes&Lower Half 650

Iberia No Yes 35,000

Cameron No Yes 10,000

Vermilion Yes No 37,000

Calcasieu Yes No 20,000

Acadia No No Unknown

Lafayette Yes No 17,000

Jefferson Davis No No Unknown

* Evacuation estimates provided by Parish Emergency Management Officials

Table 5

Parish Evacuations for Andrew

surveys which indicate that the threat from looting during evacuation is no higher than, and

usually lower than, local burglary crime rates. Recommendation II.E.5: Local

governments, with NWS and FEMA assistance, need to educate residents to alleviate

these inaccurate perceptions.

The premise behind coastal evacuations continues to be&move people out of flood-prone and

surge-prone areas prior to a hurricane making landfall. Andrew did not fit this prototype. Its

damaging winds were the primary cause of life and property loss. The NWS and various

preparedness agencies need to examine the need for and feasibility for the development of an

evacuation plan in response to the adverse effects of hurricane-force winds.
105

Response by the Media

The electronic and print media in the gulf region played a crucial role in enabling the public

to respond to the approaching hurricane. The print media maintained a steady stream of

hurricane-related information, including the latest reports and forecasts as well as emergency

response information. The electronic media, including radio and television, augmented the

print media with later and more frequent updates enhanced by color graphics and satellite

photo-imagery. The media performed a tremendous service to the residents of the gulf coast.

The ability to provide real-time, graphic pictures of the devastation wrought upon south

Florida added to achieving the desired local government and public response. Undoubtedly,

had the NWS relied solely on its own capabilities without the efforts of the media, awareness

and response information would not have reached an audience of the size that it did.

The NWS recognizes the integral role that the news media and, in particular, the broadcast

media played in disseminating weather warnings and vital information to the general public.

The link between the NWS, the emergency management, and the broadcast media is critical

to any community warning system. As in south Florida, the performance of the NWS-media

alliance has never been more effective than during the hours preceding Hurricane Andrew’s

landfall in south Louisiana. The electronic media were in place and awaiting Andrew,

providing on-site reporting which proved to be an indispensable element of the warning

system. The NWS must continue to nurture these strong partnerships and working

relationships with the media. Local media, the NWS, and local governments need to reevaluate their roles in this partnership routinely, ensuring that its goal of public warning and

preparedness is achieved most effectively.

To take fullest advantage of the media’s capacity to disseminate information to a wide

audience, a partnership was developed to coordinate NHC information through a broadcast

"pool" as described in chapter I.E.

Finding II.E.6: There were a few instances where one local television station

presented forecast track scenarios that conflicted with official NHC forecasts. That

caused some problems for local parish and NWS officials. In these instances, the media

interviewed some of the more flamboyant hurricane "experts" in the area. On occasion during

these interviews, these supposed experts would differ markedly from the forecasts issued by

the NHC. Following these interviews, questions and concerns over the official NHC forecast

would briefly inundate NWS and EOC offices. These episodes were few in number and did

little harm but placed additional workload on already overworked NWS and EOC staffs.

Recommendation II.E.6: The local NWS offices in Louisiana should make a renewed

effort to impress upon the local media that providing consistent information to the

public is critical during emergency situations.
106

Significant tree damage north of Avery Island, Louisiana, home of the world

famous McHilheny Tabasco Sauce.
107

CHAPTER II.F

PUBLIC RESPONSE

Background

The State of Louisiana does not have a mandatory evacuation policy. Although the governor

possesses authority to call for an evacuation, these decisions are usually deferred to city and

parish officials in coordination with their local emergency management staff. Public response

to requests for evacuation are voluntary in nearly all situations despite the reference to an

"ordered" or "mandatory" evacuation. Failure to comply carries no penalty.

Local Response

There are nine Louisiana parishes situated along the coastline. An additional eleven parishes

lie adjacent to the north. Much of the area covered by these parishes is near sea level and,

therefore, highly vulnerable to storm surge. The degree of vulnerability is dependent upon

both storm track and storm intensity. In response to Andrew, a northwest-moving category

4 hurricane, all of the 20 vulnerable parishes recommended some level of evacuation. The

parishes are listed in table 5 along with best estimates of the number of evacuees.

During Andrew’s advance toward the Louisiana coast, emergency managers initiated a phased

approach to evacuating coastal and second tier parishes. A concern of some parish officials was

that there would be some resistance to evacuation due to a fear of looting, largely a myth. This

was a major concern to the public in south Florida but not as much of a concern in Louisiana.

Statistics on burglaries during and shortly after natural disasters as compared to normal other

times show no significant increase in crime rates. The myth of the looting threat, largely

media-perpetuated, needlessly endangers lives during hurricanes.

The first phase of evacuation called for voluntary evacuation. These were initiated at least 48

hours prior to landfall. This approach worked especially well in areas where the evacuation

clearance times are long due to inadequate transportation networks. This approach also works

well in areas with higher degrees of vulnerability. Areas, such as barrier islands, usually have

over 80 percent of the residents evacuate voluntarily. Offshore oil rigs experience 100 percent

evacuation. In less vulnerable areas, these numbers fall off to 20 percent or less. Many

residents who evacuate less vulnerable areas are the infirm, the elderly, and those who require

greater time to evacuate. During Hurricane Andrew, the most vulnerable areas, the barrier

islands and oil platforms, did evacuate as expected, but the actual evacuation response in less

vulnerable areas has not been ascertained. Perceptions are that the response was significantly

less than expected.

Depending on the time needed, the next phase&recommended evacuation&is initiated. By the

time this stage is reached, most of the highly vulnerable coastal areas have been evacuated,

and the last few depart. In addition, another 20 percent of those who ultimately leave do so

from second tier parishes.
108

Usually coincident with the issuance of a hurricane warning, Louisiana parishes will order

evacuation. This typically occurs about 24 hours prior to landfall. In most instances, highly

vulnerable areas have achieved nearly 100 percent evacuation. Barrier islands and offshore

oil stations are such areas. A final 30 to 40 percent of those who evacuate second tier parishes

do so only when the local parish government declares an ordered evacuation. These ordered

evacuations are executed through the issuance of parish proclamations or emergency

declarations. Such documents better define the urgency of the situation for those people who

wait until the last possible moment to leave.

Nearly all coastal and second tier parishes recommended voluntary evacuation as Andrew

approached. Table 5 lists these parishes and whether or not they recommended or ordered

evacuation. The table also provides a rough estimate of the number of evacuees based on

shelter information provided by the parishes.

Less than 30 percent of the entire population of south Louisiana actually evacuates under

these circumstances. This low number concerns the NWS and the local officials. An additional

concern surfaced during interviews with residents of some coastal communities. Finding

II.F.1: Many southeast Louisiana residents did not understand the full extent of

danger from storm surge. In interviews with residents of Cocodrie, it was discovered that

many evacuated north to Houma. Houma is about 25 miles north of Cocodrie. The change in

highest elevations in Cocodrie, about 5 feet NGVD, increases to near 10 feet NGVD in Houma.

This would not have provided safe refuge from forecast storm surges of 10 to 15 feet. One

could speculate that had a 10- to 15-foot storm surge occurred, a number of lives might have

been lost. Recommendation II.F.1: The NWS needs to work more closely with FEMA,

as well as state and local officials, to develop more effective preparedness

information about storm surge. Presentations tailored to local areas could provide

information about situations to which residents could better relate. 

Finding II.F.2: Some south Louisiana residents interviewed commented that they

had evacuated highly vulnerable areas only to find themselves threatened by other

hurricane dangers. Some residents of New Orleans, highly vulnerable to storm surge and

flooding, evacuated to Baton Rouge. They had no idea that Baton Rouge would be in the direct

path of Andrew. Although these individuals felt secure in the fact that they had safely avoided

the storm surge threat, they did not fully realize that they were not clear of the wind effects

of Andrew. The public needs to be made more aware of the multiple threats a landfalling

hurricane presents and how to monitor the storm’s progress better.

In Iberia Parish, two schools housing evacuees lost part of their roof due to wind gusts of

70 mph. Had Andrew not weakened as rapidly, the damage sustained to these structures

would have been significantly greater, possibly injuring or killing scores of people. The

selection of these wide-span structures almost proved to be disastrous for those sheltered.

Evacuees were gathered in the school gymnasiums, an area of high risk, rather than their

interior hallways&areas usually much safer. Wide-span structures, such as a school

gymnasium, tend to fail more often during high wind situations and should not have been

utilized as shelters. Recommendation II.F.2: The NWS, in concert with local

emergency management officials, should ensure that evacuation studies are up to

date and accurate. Given widespread distribution, the results of these studies can

direct the public to appropriate shelter.
109

In general, most parishes reported no significant problems with the evacuation process.

However, it continues to be speculated that this was in part due to the small numbers

evacuating. Initial estimates of 1.3 million people evacuating south Louisiana are believed to

be greatly overestimated. Social scientists continue gathering data in hopes of formulating a

best estimate of the number of evacuees. There were a few minor cases of gridlock reported

on northbound routes exiting coastal areas for the central sections of Louisiana. Many of these

were easily resolved once the problem was identified. One choke point was identified on

Interstate 10, west of New Orleans. Road construction choked off exiting traffic, causing

gridlock throughout the area. The state should monitor all construction projects and anticipate

their potential impact should a hurricane threaten the area. If a construction project is

significant enough to be deemed as a problem for evacuation, alternatives should be defined

and made ready rather than risking lives through avoidable gridlock.

Finding II.F.3: Despite the efforts of the NWS and state and local emergency

managers, not all residents heeded the various evacuation requests even though

their lives may have been in jeopardy had the storm made landfall further east

along the Louisiana coast. During post-Andrew interviews with local emergency managers,

it was noted that in many cases they were unsure of the actual numbers of residents who

evacuated. This left parish officials, especially second tier parishes, with the feeling that the

number that actually evacuated was rather small. Evacuation surveys were not conducted on

the parish level after Andrew; therefore, no reliable estimate as to the number of evacuees

currently exists. The USACE and FEMA have contracted for a survey, as part of their

Louisiana version of a Hurricane Andrew assessment, to better define the actual number of

evacuees during Andrew. Preliminary results indicate that of the three areas

evacuated&Chalmette, New Orleans, and Norco&all experienced evacuation rates of less than

35 percent. The lowest was New Orleans&12 percent. When asked why they did not evacuate,

the two most common responses were that they felt that there was little chance of the storm

hitting southeast Louisiana. The other most common response was the storm wasn’t severe

enough to necessitate their evacuation. Recommendation II.F.3: The NWS and FEMA

need to increase their efforts to educate and train the public. Each agency needs

to consider expanding their training capabilities to overcome the public’s denial of

the threat from hurricanes.

Parish officials suggested two possibilities regarding the low evacuation rates. Either the

evacuation went so well that there were few problems, or so few residents had actually

evacuated that there were too few evacuees to create problems. One case supporting the latter

was in the city of Lafitte where only about half of the residents evacuated. Most of them

sought refuge within the levee system. About half of the town lies outside of the protective

levee system. Had Andrew made landfall further east and moved north, that portion of the

town outside of the levee system would have been inundated, and the levy system may have

been overtopped by storm surge. Local officials feel that persons who reside within and outside

the levee system have over the years developed a false sense of security about the levees.

Much of this can be attributed to the fact that the majority of residents have never experienced

a major hurricane. In fact, very few residents have ever experienced the maximum storm

surge from a major hurricane. 

Although yet to be confirmed, many emergency managers felt that not all residents heeded the

various evacuation recommendations and orders for evacuation, especially in the parishes that

make up Greater New Orleans. 
110

North of Cocodrie, Louisiana, home in the background was removed from its

foundation by a combination of storm surge and wind.

Finding II.F.4: Some residents of Greater New Orleans who evacuated and later

returned to their homes felt that local officials overreacted in their evacuation

recommendations, especially since Andrew made landfall further west than

projected. Local emergency managers fielded numerous complaints concerning overreaction,

but felt that under the circumstances there was no alternative. Given the same circumstances

today, they stated that they would have reacted in a similar manner. Recommendation

II.F.4: The NWS needs to work closely with the emergency management community

in convincing this most skeptical segment of the population that the advantages of

evacuating far outweigh the disadvantages of remaining in place.
111

CHAPTER II.G

PROCESSING, INTERPRETATION,

AND DISSEMINATION OF NWS INFORMATION

Utilization of Hurricane Forecasting Models by NHC and NMC

A comprehensive description of the hurricane forecasting models run by NMC and NHC is

provided in chapter I.G. The general performance of the models remained consistent with the

trend established through the Atlantic and across Florida. The greatest confidence was placed

in the AVN (Aviation) model which remained the most consistent throughout the entire event.

The various BAM (Beta Advection) models were less reliable and given less credibility during

the event. The storm track through the gulf was generally well forecast.

The greatest weakness in tropical cyclone forecasting remains in the inability of existing

computer models to project and anticipate storm intensity changes accurately. This was

evident in both Louisiana and south Florida. The SHIFOR model does not resolve short-term

rapid intensity changes. Fortunately for Louisiana, the storm did weaken rapidly, resulting

in less significant damage to the region which experienced landfall. The overforecasting of

intensity at landfall resulted in an overestimation of the storm winds at landfall. The

forecasting of tropical cyclone intensity changes continues to be the most difficult element of

a hurricane to accurately predict. Additional research is greatly needed in the area of tropical

cyclone intensity forecasting. NOAA should continue to support development of new models

and methods to better gather data in and around tropical cyclones to more effectively evaluate

and accurately project intensity changes within tropical cyclones.

SLOSH Model Performance

Forecast surge height values for the Louisiana coast were predicted to reach values of 10 to 15

feet. Actual surge height values measured from 5 and 8 feet. Compared to other forecast

cases, this could be considered a significant error. 

Past experience with the SLOSH model indicates that coastal Louisiana would have

experienced the 10- to 15-foot storm surge if the storm made landfall as a category 4 hurricane.

However, the storm decreased in intensity rapidly just prior to landfall. The storm’s central

pressure was 937 mb at 7 PM CDT on August 25. The storm filled to 955 mb 6 hours later and

to 973 mb by 7 AM CDT on August 26. At the same time that the storm was weakening, there

is evidence that the diameter of the storm’s eye also had decreased. The radius of maximum

winds (Rmax) decreased from approximately 25 miles to 14 miles during this period.

Such changes in a hurricane’s characteristics are beyond current forecasting capabilities. NHC

has little skill in forecasting hurricane intensity changes, other than to forecast decreasing

intensity as a storm moves inland. In general, NHC assumes constant Rmax and storm

intensity until landfall, then increases the Rmax and weakens the storm intensity following
112

P-Drop

Rmax

Date Time Lat Lon (mb) (mi)

AUG 24 0400 25.4 79.3 65 14

25.6 81.2 65 14

1600 25.8 83.1 65 14

26.2 85.0 65 14

AUG 25 0400 26.6 86.7 65 14

27.5 89.0 65 14

1600 27.8 90.05 65 14

28.84 90.92 60 14

AUG 26 0400 29.63 91.58 54 14

30.5 91.7 35 14

1600 31.2 91.4 20 14

31.5 91.1 15 14

AUG 27 0400 32.1 90.5 13 14

landfall. This is consistent with past observational data studies and is applied when

forecasting storm surges or in the preparation of storm surge studies. 

To understand why storm surges were about half of their predicted height, the SLOSH model

was run with an interpolation of the "best fit" track developed by NHC for Andrew’s landfall

in Louisiana. Table 6 lists the "best fit" values for the Louisiana portion of Andrew’s storm

track, including central pressures and the radius of maximum winds along that segment of its

track. For this particular run, a Rmax of 14 miles was used. Highest observed surge heights

are presented in figure 15. They were obtained from data gathered by the New Orleans office

of the USACE. Within the figure, squares are used to depict the highest gauge levels; circles

are used to identify observed high water marks. Generally, gauge levels are much more

reliable and have less error than high water marks. 

Table 6

Hurricane Andrew (Louisiana)

Best Track Data Interpolated For Use in SLOSH
113

Figure 15 & Louisiana coastal storm surge
114

These data were taken from the NHC best track, interpolated to intermediate times. The model uses

"landfall" at 4 AM CDT on August 26. Within the SLOSH model, the size of the hurricane is

parameterized by the Rmax and the intensity by the pressure drop (ambient pressure outside storm

minus the storm’s central pressure). Rmax was held constant at 14 miles for this model run.

Agreement between observed and computed surges generally was good although values far to the east

of the track appeared higher than the values indicated in the model run. It is likely that the storm’s

Rmax wind was larger than 14 miles prior to landfall, then diminished as Andrew made landfall.

Tests of these hypotheses will be done by the NWS’s Techniques Development Laboratory in the near

future.

Utility of Other PC Software

As in Florida, three major PC-based software packages were available to the various NWS offices

along the gulf coast: SLOSH display, GDS4.0, and Tides. Similar to Florida WSOs, WSOs Lake

Charles and Baton Rouge had little available time or hardware to make use of this software.

Finding II.G.1: WSFO Slidell, being collocated with the Lower Mississippi River Forecast

Center (LMRFC), had access to RFC PCs and was able to run SLOSH MEOW and other

hurricane decision-making applications. The ability to use these software packages allowed

WSFO Slidell to keep state and local officials better informed. The ability to run the full SLOSH

model on NOAA’s mainframe computers was available to the WSFO through the RFC. This capability

was lost early on in Andrew due to software problems. The capability of running SLOSH was very

beneficial to WSFO Slidell. The staff felt that the loss of this capability was a major blow to their

ability to support local emergency management officials on issues of storm surge.

PC availability is limited at most NWS offices to one or two&a computer dedicated to SRWarn and

network backup use, and a Micro-Arts PC used for compiling and disseminating surface and

rawinsonde observations. In order to operate SLOSH display, GDS4.0, and Tides, other resident

programs had to be terminated. Recommendation II.G.1: See Recommendation I.G.3.
115

CHAPTER II.H

COMMUNICATIONS

Automation of Field Operations and Services (AFOS)

WSFO Slidell operates as the AFOS node for the State of Louisiana. They host the primary data base

in support of the collocated LMRFC and WSOs Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, and Shreveport. AFOS

performed efficiently during the event. Early interviews with the media and emergency management

agencies revealed that some product transmissions were missing. Not all missing products were the

result of an AFOS problem. Most were traced to improper or missing Universal Generic Coding,

necessary for proper and timely relay of data to users.

NOAA Weather Wire Service (NWWS)

The satellite driven uplink for the NWWS is located at WSFO Slidell. It did not have any problems

during Hurricane Andrew. 

Two local jurisdictions, Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, experienced periodic difficulties with their

NWWS during Andrew. In addition, two vendors of weather information discovered that some NWS

products were periodically missing. Finding II.H.1: The Universal Generic Codes (UGC) were

incorrectly entered in several of the products disseminated by south Louisiana offices. The

AFOS relay system relies on these codes for automatic product distribution and purging of products

at predetermined expiration times. During Andrew, it was noted that for an 8- to 12-hour period, a

few offices were incorrectly entering the UGC or providing an incorrect expiration time. Most of these

error relay problems were caught and corrected at the data relay point in Washington, D.C.

Recommendation II.H.1: NWS offices should perform more on-the-spot quality control of

products prior to their public release. The use of software, such as version 6.0 of SRWarn,

would help eliminate many of these errors.

The State of Louisiana currently has 40 NWWS drops. Table 7 lists the various subscribers. The two

state agencies that have drops on the NWWS are the state police and the state DEM. Both the state

DEM and law enforcement agencies relay critical forecast products to local and state officials. The

news media rely primarily on other wire services, e.g., AP, UPI, and commercial data vendors, such

as Weather Services Incorporated and Kavouras Incorporated, for receipt of NWS products.
116

Media Government

Cable TV 2 Federal 1

Television 8 State 2

AM Radio 4 Local 7

FM Radio 2

AM/FM Stations - Utilities 8

Newspaper 2

Wire Services 1 Other 3

Total 19 Total 21

Table 7

Louisiana NOAA Weather Wire Subscribers

Family of Services

NWS forecast products and data are distributed to the electronic media via private sector vendors

through the Family of Services. This indirect method probably was the most important factor in

evacuating southern Louisiana effectively and rapidly prior to Andrew.

NOAA Weather Radio (NWR)

This radio broadcast system uses nine transmitters to cover the entire coastal area of Louisiana. All

local officials interviewed by the survey team monitored NWR during the approach and impact of

Andrew. Many officials noted that they acquired more specific information from direct contacts with

NWS officials or from copies of NOAA Weather Wire products, however. 

Much of the NWR system in Louisiana remained on air throughout Andrew. The only exceptions were

Morgan City and Lafayette, where hurricane-force winds toppled transmission towers several hours

prior to landfall. In addition to the loss of the tower at Morgan City, the facility which houses the

electronics suffered structural damage. Wind-driven rain damaged much of the equipment within the

facility. Both systems were either partially or fully operational within weeks following Andrew.
117

National Warning System (NAWAS)

NAWAS remained functional throughout the storm. As in Florida, the Louisiana link to NAWAS

serves as an emergency communications link among the NWS, a limited number of emergency

management offices, and law enforcement offices. NAWAS provides the NWS an additional means

of contacting nine state police offices, the Louisiana DEM, and several of the larger local emergency

management offices. NAWAS provides its users a means of exchanging emergency information critical

to the decision-making process. This system, however, remains relatively unused by the groups who

have access.

Hurricane Hotline Internal Coordination System

The hurricane hotline remained functional and worked well during Andrew. The only problem

encountered was with voice quality at several sites along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. This

created a minor inconvenience for NHC and other offices who relied on this system for information.

These offices had to repeat elements of their transmissions several times before a message was

completely understood. Finding II.H.2: Currently, not all coastal WSOs have access to the

hurricane hotline. Recommendation II.H.2: NOAA needs to expand the hurricane hotline

to all coastal WSOs in hurricane vulnerable areas. 

The Emergency Broadcast System (EBS)

Through interviews with emergency management officials, it was discovered that because of the

national and local news media coverage of Hurricane Andrew, there was no perceived benefit to

activating the EBS. As Andrew approached the Florida coast, it was the news story. The attention

of the residents of Louisiana was firmly fixed upon Andrew as it devastated south Florida.

Telephone Systems 

Routine telephone service between the WSFO and the WSOs remained operational. Understandably,

access to coastal parishes was limited following the landfall of Andrew. In those instances where

communication was not possible via land line telephone systems, other methods of communication

were utilized.

Amateur Radio

Amateur radio operators were instrumental in providing valuable information both to the NWS and

local officials. They pass on warnings and exchange information between the NWS and EM officials.

Several severe weather spotter networks and base stations were activated during Andrew. There

were no documented instances of any difficulties.
118

Army Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS)

The Army Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS) provided communications support to the State of

Louisiana during Hurricane Andrew. Army MARS affiliates maintain an extensive HF/VHF

communications network throughout the continental United States with long-range HF relay

capabilities (voice/digital) to military and civilian MARS units assigned to stateside and overseas

commands. The primary mission of MARS is to provide DOD-sponsored emergency communications

support on a local, national, and international basis to military, civil, and disaster officials during

periods of emergency. Finding II.H.3: The use of Army MARS (Military Affiliate Radio

System) within the Louisiana emergency communications system was very successful.

Since Andrew, the State of Louisiana has formulated a memorandum of understanding/agreement

(MOU/A) with Army MARS that integrates Army MARS operationally into the State of Louisiana

emergency communications system. Recommendation II.H.3: The NWS and FEMA need to

coordinate with Army MARS to ensure that these capabilities can be extended to other

locations.

Telephone Facsimile Transmissions

The Louisiana OEM pays for a drop on NWWS. They retransmit severe weather warnings and

selected forecast products to all affected state and local emergency management agencies. This

system works but is very time consuming, taking up to 15 minutes to transmit a product to only a few

users during small-scale weather events. During major events, such as Andrew, the system becomes

extremely congested as the event unfolds. In some instances, it was taking 30 minutes to an hour to

receive critical information. The overall effectiveness of this form of dissemination was questioned

by all parish officials interviewed. An alternative system to warning and forecast dissemination

should be pursued.

Telephone facsimile transmissions from the NWS offices to state and local government offices are

available. Although this service gives additional technical support and may save lives, it can drain

personnel resources. This technique was used early during Andrew to keep local emergency managers

as informed as possible.

Louisiana Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (LALETS)

The Louisiana State Police operates LALETS as the statewide telecommunications system. It also

is linked to the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS). The NWS provides

a drop on NWWS to the Louisiana State Police. The system is programmed to disseminate all

warnings and selected weather forecast products automatically to affected state police troopers and

local law enforcement agencies. During Andrew, this system was one of the most reliable and efficient

means of disseminating information to state and local law enforcement agencies. Finding II.H.4:

The State of Louisiana, Division of Emergency Management, currently does not have a

fully automated information redistribution system. The Louisiana DEM should look into taking

advantage of this existing communications system to facilitate the widespread communication of

severe weather and flood warnings, watches, and statements to local officials. Recommendation

II.H.4: The NWS and FEMA should encourage the State of Louisiana to explore options for

providing a fully automated communications system to law enforcement agencies and local

emergency operating centers. Once in place, the NWS should arrange to link with that

system, allowing two-way communication of critical warning information between the

NWS and the emergency management community.
119

Personal Briefings

The MICs from WSO Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, and WSFO Slidell provided detailed briefings to

state and local officials at meetings called to coordinate emergency preparedness for Hurricane

Andrew. These meetings proved very beneficial. In addition, a meteorologist from the WSFO was

detailed to the New Orleans EOC to coordinate information and provide technical assistance to local

officials. This was done in accordance with an existing agreement between the city of New Orleans

and the NWS as part of the move to Slidell.

Communication With Users

There are numerous direct and indirect ways the NWS disseminates its forecast products to users.

In spite of these point-to-multi-point dissemination systems, many officials still do not receive timely

or complete information and, in many cases, have extreme difficulty in contacting their local NWS

office directly. Most local emergency managers stated that a more efficient and technically advanced

method of communication is long overdue.

Many users find that visual imagery provides greater confirmation of an impending threat, making

the forecast more credible. The NWS needs to consider providing products and information in a visual

format rather than purely written or verbal. The New Orleans Coast Guard Office is one agency that

is interested in receiving plots of track forecasts in graphical form. The only current means of

conveying this information is by facsimile.
120
121

CHAPTER II.I

DATA COLLECTION

National Data Buoy System

The path of Hurricane Andrew through the Gulf of Mexico and across south-central Louisiana brought

the storm within approximately 100 nm of seven weather stations operated by the NDBC (see figures

16 and 17).

The only failure in the gulf, as a result of the storm, was a sea temperature thermistor at a station

on the Louisiana coast. These units provide extremely valuable data, but unfortunately there are not

enough of them available. Figures 16 and 17 depict the C-MAN network density. The network is

rather sparse along the Louisiana coast and the gulf coast, in general. South Florida has a more

dense network but that is still not totally adequate.

Aircraft reconnaissance information is combined with nearby C-MAN observations to estimate wind

data in and near a hurricane. Andrew’s track took it between three C-MAN sites: C-MAN S-2

(Sabine, Texas) on the westernmost portion of the Louisiana coast, and C-MAN S-6 (Grand Isle,

Louisiana) and C-MAN S-3 (Southwest Pass, Louisiana) on the east end of the Louisiana coast.

Hurricane Andrew was many miles from any C-MAN station. Wind estimates made from data derived

through aircraft reconnaissance and compared to distant C-MAN sites are not deemed helpful for

estimating maximum landfall winds.

 

Some significant changes are occurring in the moored buoy and C-MAN networks. Finding II.I.1:

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has decided to remove all large navigational buoys and

replace them with other, smaller types of buoys. The replacement buoys are too small to

be fitted with meteorological instruments. Loss of the current buoys, in the near future,

will mean the loss of hourly data from stations along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico

coasts. In many coastal regions, there is a lack of important wind, rain, tide, and other

hydrometeorological instrumentation. The lack of fully instrumented buoys significantly affected the

computer models due to the paucity of data. Recommendation II.I.1: The NWS, through its

National Data Buoy Center, should ensure that sufficient capabilities are present to

maintain hourly observations along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal waters. An

enhanced program would greatly benefit the NWS in its assessment of storms.

As seen in figures 16 and 17, many coastal regions lack important wind, rain, tide, and other

hydrometeorological measuring devices. This contributed to a lack of data describing current

conditions as Andrew was making landfall. This further highlights the importance of a comprehensive

data buoy network.
122

Figure 16 & NDBC Moored Buoy Stations&Atlantic Basin.
123

Figure 17 & Coastal C-MAN sites.
124

A supplemental data source that complements the Data Buoy Network is a fixed remote

meteorological network mounted on selected oil platforms. For years, this network has provided the

NWS with supplemental hydrometeorological information by filling many of the data gaps between

data buoys along the gulf coast. Due to the high cost of maintenance, NOAA has been forced to assess

a servicing fee for oil companies. The oil companies have been either unable to or unwilling to pay the

service fee, ultimately opting to have all meteorological equipment removed from their oil platforms.

Finding II.I.2: The implementation of service maintenance fees has resulted in the removal

of meteorological equipment from gulf oil platforms, and a significant loss of data has

occurred.

The events of Hurricane Andrew continually point to the need for not only more data but more

accurate data. Recommendation II.I.2: NOAA must review its position on charging oil

platforms a service fee to maintain meteorological equipment.

NWS Radars&WSR-57, WSR-74C, and WSR-88D

This complement of radars was used to track the progress of Andrew over portions of the gulf and on

to its eventual landfall in Louisiana. The data provided by these systems complemented aircraft

reconnaissance and satellite data by giving NWS offices an accurate indication of Andrew’s position

and movement.

These vintage radar systems performed admirably during Andrew with no recorded equipment

failures. These coastal radars provided hourly fixes of Andrew, verifying Andrew’s position and track.

The WSR-88D Doppler radars have recently been installed and placed in operation at only a few sites

along the gulf coast. None have been installed in Louisiana, but the system in Houston was

operational during Andrew. Finding II.I.3: Although Andrew did not move into WSO

Houston’s effective Doppler range, the WSR-88D radar did provide extremely detailed

reflectivity data on the storm. The consensus following Andrew was that the performance of

Houston’s WSR-88D provided the NWS with a glimpse of its operational capabilities.

Recommendation II.I.3: See Recommendation I.I.3. Examples of the Houston WSR-88D

conventional display capabilities are provided as figures 18 and 19. 

Aircraft Reconnaissance

Reconnaissance off the Louisiana coast was conducted by U.S. Air Force Reserve (USAFR) aircraft.

At their peak, reconnaissance flights were conducted every 2 hours, providing NHC with data critical

to NHC and NMC forecast models.

The reconnaissance missions flown during Andrew were conducted through DOD aircraft, dispatched

by the USAFR. Department of Commerce aircraft were not employed during Andrew. Utilization of

these aircraft was coordinated through NHC and CARCAH. Hurricane track and intensity forecast

errors are highly dependent on the accuracy of initial conditions and on the ability of the forecast

model to predict the future state of the 
125

Figure 18 - WSO Houston, Texas, WSR-88D composite reflectivity

image of Hurricane Andrew taken at 7:05 UTC, August 26, 1992 (2:05

AM CDT, August 26).
126

Figure 19 & WSO Houston, Texas, WSR-88D composite reflectivity

image of Hurricane Andrew taken at 10:01 UTC, August 26, 1992 (5:01

AM CDT, August 26).
127

atmosphere. Over oceans, where hurricanes originate, inadequate observations make a major

contribution to analysis errors and are, therefore, a formidable obstacle to improved forecasts.

Recent research has proven that supplemental observations around hurricanes can result in large

improvements in hurricane track forecasting. This was evidenced in the resulting track forecasts

during Hurricane Andrew and supported by the results of a study conducted by the Hurricane

Research Division of AOML. Ultimately, aircraft reconnaissance of tropical cyclones must continue

in order to make effective use of next generation models for tropical cyclone track and intensity

forecasting.

The Hurricane Research Division collected reconnaissance aircraft data off the Louisiana coast and

combined them with data from land stations, automated coastal platforms, moored buoys, and ships

and assimilated into a composite representation of the storm. Some of these data were collected and

processed in real-time, but most of the final composites were compiled during post-storm analysis

efforts but show promise for real-time application. The data composites are in a storm-relative

coordinate system over a period of several hours in order to provide a field of sufficient data density

for analysis. Due to the limited remote sensing data available along the Louisiana coast, the resulting

wind composites for Louisiana were less accurate than over Florida. All wind data are converted to

produce estimates of sustained winds at the standard 10-meter (33-foot) height over a standard

terrain exposure. This approach provides a snapshot of the hurricane’s wind field. 

Satellite Observations

GOES satellite platform information provided NWS offices with details on storm track, forecast model

initialization, and variations within the storm’s structure. Satellite information was frequently

referenced in NSSFC mesoscale discussions and local office forecast discussion. The use of satellites

remains an integral element of the NWS’s remote sensing program but must be complemented by

other remote sensing equipment. This last satellite of the GOES 7 era has for the past year been

experiencing a decaying of its orbit. Had this last remaining satellite failed, the "No-GOES" backup

plan would have been implemented. This raises the question of whether under the No-GOES plan

the NWS could adequately address the problems of hurricane tracking and forecasting. Periodic

testing of the No-GOES plan should ensure its implementation readiness and effectiveness.

Storm Tide and Storm Surge

Increases in water level are measured by two methods, storm tide and storm surge. Both are described

in chapter I.I. Along the Louisiana coast, there were scores of measurements taken by the USACE

and USGS. Figure 20 depicts many of these measurements. Note that most of these observations

were taken from tide gauges rather than high water marks. Gauges are much more reliable than high

water mark observations.
128

Figure 20 - High water marks along the Louisiana coast

during Hurricane Andrew.
129

CONCLUSION

Its inconspicuous beginning as a weak tropical disturbance in the central Atlantic gave no indication

of Andrew’s ultimate destiny as "The Hurricane" to change the fabric of south Dade County society.

Nevertheless, the damage left in Andrew’s wake has become a monument to the potentially

profound impact that a powerful hurricane can have on a modern coastal community. Collectively,

we among the hazards community should regard Andrew as an ominous wake-up call&a call to

mitigate as it were. 

As terrible a disaster as Hurricane Andrew was, the economic impact of the storm, had it moved on

a path just 20 miles further north, would have been much, much worse. Evidence (figures 21 and

22) suggests that a direct hit on Miami would have cost not $25 billion but $60 billion. Continuing

the more northerly track across south Florida to Fort Myers, then across the Gulf of Mexico to New

Orleans, compounds the incredible devastation that very easily could have occurred. The difference

between the actual track and the one we have just conjectured, from a forecast model standpoint,

is in the noise level of resolution.

The substantial change in population distribution along our hurricane vulnerable coastlines dictates

that we confront the reality that is the hurricane threat. Major hurricanes possess arsenals that

include flash flood producing-rainfall, killer storm surges, and devastating winds. The latter

element was the prime cause of damage during Andrew, and those winds swept well inland far from

areas evacuated because of the storm surge threat.

If Andrew taught us nothing else, it conveyed the reality that hurricane winds constitute a major

threat not only along the immediate coastline but for many miles inland. Preparing for the

possibility of extreme inland winds, in addition to the threat of tornadoes, flash floods, riverine

flooding, and storm surge, is necessary for private citizenry and emergency planners alike. That

another "Andrew" will occur is not conjecture, it is a certainty. Our ability to respond to that reality

hinges on how we answer the call to mitigate.
130

Figure 21 & Dade County Property Tax Values&1992.
131

Figure 22 & Dade County Populations&1990 Census.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A

SUMMARY TABLES
Appendix A, Table A.1

Hurricane Andrew Selected Surface Observations

August 1992

Minimum Sea-level Maximum Surface Wind Speed

Pressure (Kt)

Storm Sto

Pressure Date/Time 1-Minute Peak Date/Time Surgeb Tid

Total)Location (mb) (UTC) Average Gust (UTC)* (ft) (f

A-1

Bahamas

Harbour Island 935.0c 23/2100 120c,d 23/shortly after 2100

Nassau 999.0c 24/0000 80 100 24/0025

Current Island 23 

Lower Bogue (1 n mi inland) 16 

Florida East Coast and Keys

Tamiami (TMB) 988.0c,d 110c,d,i 24/0848F

Miami WSFO/NHC 982.0c,d 24/0900 100c,d,e 142c,d,e 24/0850 NOAA/AOML 984.0 87c,d

Miami I. Arpt. (MIA) 992.6 24/0900 75e 100 24/0950 

Miami Beach DARDC 65c 92c 24/0816

Haulover NOS NGWLMS 1004.0 58c 115 24/0900

Fort Lauderdale (FLL) 53c

Palm Beach (PBI) 1010.8 24/0259,0420 43 51 24/1033Palm Beach ASOS 42 24/1036Key West WSO (EYW) 1010.1 24/1400 25 37 24/1614 Patrick AFB (COF) 1016.2 24/0955 22 31 24/0735Melbourne (MLB) 1016.3 24/0950 15 21 24/1151Orlando (MCO) 1016.9 24/0950 30 24/1850NASA Shuttle (X68) 1016.9 24/0855 11 23 24/1149Titusville (TIX) 1017.9 24/1053 8 14 24/1149 East Perrine 16.9

Florida West Coast

Collier County EOC 87e 24/

Captiva Fire Station 63Fort Myers (RSW) 1010.2 24/1347,1446 30 45 24/1446,1547 Cape CoralGlades County EOC 44 24/btwn 1100 and 1200Clrwtr./St. P. Arpt. 30 40 24/1625Goodland 6.0g

Everglades City 6.0g
Appendix A, Table A.1

Hurricane Andrew Selected Surface Observations

August 1992

Minimum Sea-level Maximum Surface Wind Speed

Pressure (Kt)

Storm Sto

Pressure Date/Time 1-Minute Peak Date/Time Surgeb Tid

Total)Location (mb) (UTC) Average Gust (UTC)* (ft) (f

A-2

Florida West Coast (cont.)

Fort Myers Beach 2.0

Venice 1.8Anna Marie Island 1.5Homosassa 1.5Gulf Harbors 1.5Indian Rocks Beach 1.0

Louisiana

Morgan City (P42) 80e 94e

Baton Rouge (BTR) 996.5 26/1427 42 61 26/1452 New Orleans (MSY) 1006.6 26/0805 39 57 26/0950 Bayou Bienvenue Salt Point AMOS (P92) 40 72 26/0728Lafayette (LFT) 990.5 26/1250 46 62 26/1057 Lake Charles (LCH) 1008.8 21 34 26/2152 Berwick Fire Stn. 83e 104eJeanerette 975.0 71 78cJeanerette 67 75 26/0845Near Brusly 990.2 26/1337 69 90c 26/1310 

Lafayette Courthouse 90e

Mooring 17 (29.2oN 92.0oW) 994.9 26/0930

Cocodrie 8.0

Burns Point (St. Mary Parish) 6.8h

Bayou Dupre 6.5Bayou Bienvenue 6.3NWS HANDAR east N. Orleans 5.6 Port Fourchon 5.0hN end of causeway 4.9Industrial canal 4.4Marina 4.3Rigolets 4.2Grand Isle 3.5h
Appendix A, Table A.1

Hurricane Andrew Selected Surface Observations

August 1992

Minimum Sea-level Maximum Surface Wind Speed

Pressure (Kt)

Storm Sto

Pressure Date/Time 1-Minute Peak Date/Time Surgeb Tid

Total)Location (mb) (UTC) Average Gust (UTC)* (ft) (f

A-3

Alabama

Huntsville (HSV) 1000.3 27/2250 22 36 27/1742 Birmingham (BHM) 1001.7 27/2215 19 35 27/1640 Montgomery (MGM) 1008.8 27/2045 23 31 27/2307 Mobile (MOB) 1010.1 27/2051 26 35 25/1844 Mobile State Docks 2.6 3.5

Dauphin Island 6.0

Georgia

Atlanta (ATL) 1005.4 28/0400 39 27/2039

Mississippi

Jackson (JAN) 998.6 26/0750 28 49 27/0219 Tupelo (TUP) 24 36 27/2000 Meridian (MEI) 1004.4 25 48 27/0945 State Port (Gulfport) 39 27/1951Bay St. Louis 4.5f

Texas

Port Arthur (BPT) 1011.5 26/1000 22 30 26/1953Sabine Pass 1.1 

Ship reports

OYGK2 (29.5EN 80.6EW) 60 25/1200

ELLE2 (19.4EN 56.6EW) 1013.5 19/1500 35 19/1500C6KD (28.1EN 79.2EW) 1015.5 24/0600 35 24/0600
Appendix A, Table A.1

Hurricane Andrew Selected Surface Observations

August 1992

Minimum Sea-level Maximum Surface Wind Speed

Pressure (Kt)

Storm Sto

Pressure Date/Time 1-Minute Peak Date/Time Surgeb Tid

Total)Location (mb) (UTC) Average Gust (UTC)* (ft) (f

A-4

Gulf of Mexico platforms(c,e)

SS 198G (28.2EN 92.0EW) 78 100 26/0330

EC 83H (28.2EN 92.0EW) 46 49 26/0330EC 42B (29.5EN 92.8EW) 38 88 26/0430SM 136B (28.2EN 92.0EW) 38 44 25/2230

a Time of 1-minute wind speed unless only gust is given.b Storm surge is water height above normal tide level. Storm tide is water height relative to National Geodetic Verti

as mean sea level in 1929.

c A more extreme value may have occurred.d Equipment became inoperable after this measurement.e Non-standard elevation.f Estimated.g Above Mean Low Water.h Above Mean Water Level.i Subsequent laboratory tests at the NHC indicate that the needles on the two windspeed dials at Tamiami Airport "peg

respectively.
Appendix A, Table A.2

Selected Rainfall Totals Associated with

Hurricane Andrew

August 1992

Location Total Rain (in)

A-5

Florida

S-124 (Broward County) 7.79

S-21A (Dade County) 7.41

S-20G (Dade County) 5.19

S-37A (Broward County) 5.14

S-39 (Broward/Palm Beach Counties) 5.12

S-80 (Martin-St. Lucie) 4.94

Everglades Park (Collier County) *4.50 

S-18C (Dade County) 4.48

Marco Island *3.50

S-20F (Dade County) 4.12

S-308 (Lake Okeechobee area) 3.47

Cudjoe Key 2.02

Louisiana

 

Hammond 11.92

Robert 11.02

Amite 10.36

Morgan City 9.31

Manchac 8.75

Jeanerette 7.96

Butte La Rose 7.90

Ponchatoula 7.54

Mt. Herman 7.50

Franklin 7.03

WSFO Slidell 5.06

Jena 4WSW 4.42

 

Alabama

Aliceville 4.40

Tuscaloosa 3.60

MRGA1 Morgan 3.46

MRZA1 Mount Roszell 3.21

CDCA1 Red Bay Creek 2.90

WRTA1 Wright 2.89

CBTA1 Colbert 2.75

AKDA1 Lexington 2.66

OAKA1 Oakland 2.62

Georgia

 Hurst 5.24

 Mountain City 4.60

 Burton 4.31

 Clayton 4.30

 Nacoochee Pwr 3.83

 Helen 3.40

SCHG1 Suches G. Creek 3.32

TUSG1 Titus 3.13

 Tallulah 3.05

 Jasper 2.67

BRDG1 Blue Ridge Dam 2.65

EPWG1 Epworth H. Store 2.64

* Indicates estimate.
Appendix A, Table A.2

Selected Rainfall Totals Associated with

Hurricane Andrew

August 1992

Location Total Rain (in)

A-6

Kentucky

BLWK2 2.56

Mississippi

Sumrall 9.30

Pelahatchie (gauge) 8.20

Yazoo City 7.63

Crystal Springs 7.24

Pelahatchie (co-op) 7.07

Collins 7.04

Union Church 7.04

Brookhaven 7.02

Mize 6.71

Rockport 6.36

Monticello 6.36

Booneville 6.30

Good Hope 6.14

Vicksburg 5.95

McComb 5.93

Ofahoma 5.82

Bay St. Louis 5.72

White Oak 5.65

Forest 5.59

Liberty 5.59

Goshen Springs 5.52

Port Gibson 5.51

Meadville 5.45

Tylertown 5.38

Columbia 5.32

Philadelphia 5.06

North Carolina

HDSN7 Highlands 4.68

WLGN7 F-Wallace Gap 2.73

RMNN7 Rosman 2.62

Tennessee

 

ELKT1 Elkton 3.80

WNBT1 Waynesboro 3.64

GEOT1 Georgetown 3.43

IRCT1 Iron City-S.C. 3.33

BGLT1 Big Lick 3.25

CBOT1 Crab Orchard 3.07

CLLT1 Collinwood 3.07

PSKT1 Pulaski 3.03

LNVT1 Lynnville 2.97

PICT1 Pickwick Dam 2.95

CLET1 Cleveland 2.91

CLBT1 Columbia 2.80

DYNT1 Dime 2.74

LEWT1 Lewisburg 2.58

CSV Crossville Arpt. 2.57

PKVT1 Pikeville 2.50
Appendix A, Table A.3

Hurricane Andrew Selected NDBC Observations

August 1992

Minimum Sea-level Maximum Surface Wind Speed

Pressure (Kt)

Pressure Date/Time 1-Minute Peak Date/Time

Location (mb) (UTC) Average Gust (UTC)

A-7

Fowey Rocks C-MAN 967.5b,c 24/0800 123b,c 147b,c 24/0800

FWYF1/ 25.6EN 80.1EW

Bullwinkle Platform 998.5 25/2300 52 63b 25/2225

BUSL1/ 27.9EN 90.9EW 

Molasses Reef C-MAN 998.5 24/0900 48 59 24/1000

MLRF1/ 25.0EN 80.4EW

Eastern Gulf Buoy 997.4 25/0400 45 63 25/0250

42003/ 25.9EN 85.9EW 

Grand Isle C-MAN 1005.2 25/2300 48 73 25/2200

GDIL1/ 29.2EN 90.0EW

Southwest Pass C-MAN 1006.1 25/2200 56 80 25/2100

BURL1/ 28.9EN 89.4EW 

Sombrero Key C-MAN 1007.7 24/1100 34 42 24/1130

SMKF1/ 24.6EN 81.2EW 

Lena Platform C-MAN 1007.7 25/1600

LNEL1/ 28.2EN 89.1EW 

Eleuthera Buoy 1007.9 23/2040 29 35b 24/0040

41016/ 24.6EN 76.5EW 

Sand Key C-MAN 1010.2 24/1100,1400 30 43 24/1600

SANF1/ 24.5EN 81.9EW 

Settlement Point C-MAN 1012.7 24/0600 38 47 24/0500

SPGF1/ 26.7EN 79.0EW 

Buoy 1013.5 25/2250 30 46 25/1850

42007/ 30.1EN 88.8EW

Dauphin Island C-MAN 1016.1 26/0000 32 46 25/2100

DPIA1/ 30.2EN 88.1EW 

a NOAA buoys report an 8-minute average wind. C-MAN station reports are 2-min. average winds at the top of the

hour and 10-min. averages at other times. 

Contact NDBC for additional details.

b A more extreme value may have occurred.

c Equipment became inoperable shortly after observation.
A-8

Appendix A, Table A.4

Initial Estimates of Casualties and Damges Incurred 

in Association with Hurricane Andrew

Deaths Damage

Direct Indirect ($Billion)

Bahamas 3 1 0.25

Florida 15a 29 20-25

Dade County 15 25 20-25

Broward County 0 3 0.1

Monroe County 0 1 0.131

Collier County 0 0 0.03

Louisiana 8a 91

St. J. the B. Parish 2 

Offshore 6

Lafayette Parish 2 0.017

Vermilion Parish 0.001

Iberville Parish 1

Terrebonne Parish 3

Orleans Parish 1

Plaquemines Parish 1

Iberia Parish 1

Georgia 0.001

Total 26 39 20-25

a

 Total includes missing individuals presumed dead.
A-9

Appendix A, Table A.5

Hurricane Andrew Average Track Forecast Errors 

(Nautical Miles), Non-homogeneous Sample

Forecast Period (Hours)

12 24 36 48 72

Official 33 65 106 141 243

(no. of cases) (37) (35) (33) (31) (27)

CLIPER 35 81 148 233 437

(37) (35) (33) (31) (27)

AVNO 60 75 89 97 132

(15) (15) (14) (13) (11)

BAMD 45 93 141 182 268

(37) (35) (33) (31) (27)

BAMM 40 81 121 151 229

(37) (35) (33) (31) (27)

BAMS 39 77 114 135 197

(37) (35) (33) (31) (27)

QLM 39 64 93 130 192

(19) (18) (17) (16) (14)

NHC90 35 77 135 197 330

(37) (35) (33) (31) (27)

VBAR 32 60 93 138 287

(23) (23) (23) (23) (23)

GFDL 36 71 93 117 209

 (9) (9) (9) (9) (7)

 
A-10

Appendix A, Table A.6

Watch and Warning Summary 

Hurricane Andrew

Date/Time(UTC)/Action

22/1500 Hurricane Watch Northwest Bahamas from Andros and Eleuthera Islands northward

through Grand Bahama and Great Abaco

22/2100 Hurricane Warning Northwest Bahamas from Andros and Eleuthera Islands northward

through Grand Bahama and Great Abaco

22/2100 Hurricane Watch Florida east coast from Titusville southward through the

Florida Keys including the Dry Tortugas

23/0600 Hurricane Warning Central Bahamas including Cat Island, Great Exuma, San

Salvador, and Long Island

23/1200 Hurricane Warning Florida east coast from Vero Beach southward through the

Florida Keys to the Dry Tortugas including Florida Bay

23/1200 Tropical Storm Warning Florida east coast north of Vero Beach to Titusville

23/1200 Hurricane Watch Florida west coast south of Bayport including the greater

Tampa area to north of Flamingo

23/1800 Hurricane Warning Florida west coast south of Venice and Lake Okeechobee

23/1800 Tropical Storm Warning Florida west coast north of Venice to Bayport

24/0900 Hurricane Warning discontinued Bahamas except for Bimini and Grand Bahama

 

24/1300 Hurricane Warning discontinued Remainder of the Bahamas

24/1300 Hurricane Warning discontinued Florida except for Lake Okeechobee and the west coast south of

Venice to Flamingo

24/1300 Tropical Storm Warning and Florida east coast from Vero Beach to Titusville

 Hurricane Watch discontinued and Florida west coast from Venice to Bayport

24/1300 Hurricane Watch Northern gulf coast from Mobile, Alabama, to Sabine Pass,

Texas

24/1800 Hurricane Warning discontinued Remainder of Florida

24/2100 Hurricane Warning Northern gulf coast from Pascagoula, Mississippi, to Vermilion

Bay, Louisiana

25/0900 Hurricane Warning Vermilion Bay, Louisiana, to Port Arthur, Texas

25/0900 Hurricane Watch West of Port Arthur through High Island, Texas

 

25/1500 Hurricane Warning West of Port Arthur through the Bolivar Peninsula, Texas

25/1500 Hurricane Watch West of the Bolivar Peninsula to Freeport, Texas

 

26/0700 Hurricane Warning discontinued East of Grand Isle, Louisiana

26/0700 Hurricane Watch discontinued West of the Bolivar Peninsula

 

26/1100 Hurricane Warning discontinued West of Port Arthur, Texas

26/1300 Hurricane Warning discontinued West of Cameron, Louisiana

 

26/1700 Hurricane Warning discontinued Remainder of gulf coast 
A-11

Appendix A, Table A.7

Watch and Warning Lead Times for Landfall Sites during 

Hurricane Andrew. Lead Time Refers to Time Lapsed 

from Advisory to Landfall

Location Type Lead Time (hours)

Northwest Bahamas Hurricane Watch 30

Hurricane Warning 24

Southeast Florida Hurricane Watch 36

Hurricane Warning 21

South-central Louisiana Hurricane Watch 43

Hurricane Warning 24
Appendix A, Table A.8

Changes of the Center of Hurricane Andrew Passing within 65 miles

of Listed Locations by Date and Time (EDT) Indicated,

Probabilities in Percent With X for Less than 2 Percent

A-12

Advisory Issue Time: 16/11PM 17/5AM 17/11AM 17/5PM 17/11PM

Probability End Time: 19/8PM 20/2AM 20/8AM 20/2PM 20/8PM

SVMG 110N 640W 4 5 7 6 X

TTPP 106N 614W 7 8 9 6 X

TTPT 112N 608W 8 10 11 8 X

TGPY 120N 618W 8 10 11 9 X

TBPB 131N 595W 11 14 15 14 4

TVSV 131N 612W 9 11 14 12 3

TLPL 138N 610W 10 12 15 14 5

TFFF 146N 610W 10 12 15 15 8

TDPR 153N 614W 10 12 15 15 10

TFFR 163N 615W 10 12 16 16 13

TAPA 171N 618W 9 11 15 16 15

TKPK 173N 627W 8 10 14 15 14

TNCM 181N 631W 8 9 14 14 14

TISX 177N 648W 6 7 12 12 9

TIST 183N 650W 6 7 11 12 10

TJPS 180N 666W 4 5 9 10 6

TJSJ 184N 661W 4 5 10 11 8

MDSD 185N 697W X X 5 5 X

MDCB 176N 714W X X 2 3 X

MTPP 186N 724W X X 2 2 X

TNCC 122N 690W X X 3 2 X

MDPP 198N 707W X X 3 4 X

MBJT 215N 712W X X 2 3 X

MYMM 224N 730W X X X 2 X

ST CROIX VI 6 7 12 12 9

ST THOMAS VI 6 7 11 12 10

SAN JUAN PR 4 5 10 11 8

PONCE PR 4 5 9 10 6

Advisory Issue Time: 18/5AM 18/11AM 18/5PM 18/11PM 19/5AM

Probability End Time: 21/2AM 21/8AM 21/2PM 21/8PM 22/2AM

TBPB 131N 595W 4 3 X X X

TVSV 131N 612W 3 3 X X X

TLPL 138N 610W 6 6 2 X X

TFFF 146N 610W 9 9 4 2 2

TDPR 153N 614W 11 13 7 4 3

TFFR 163N 615W 15 18 13 8 6

TAPA 171N 618W 18 21 17 14 10

TKPK 173N 627W 16 20 17 14 10

TNCM 181N 631W 17 21 19 19 17

TISX 177N 648W 12 16 14 14 12

TIST 183N 650W 13 17 16 16 15

TJPS 180N 666W 8 13 12 12 11

TJSJ 184N 661W 10 15 14 14 14

MDSD 185N 697W 3 6 7 8 8

MDCB 176N 714W X 2 3 3 3

MTPP 186N 724W X 2 3 3 3

MDPP 198N 707W 3 6 8 8 9
Appendix A, Table A.8

Changes of the Center of Hurricane Andrew Passing within 65 miles

of Listed Locations by Date and Time (EDT) Indicated,

Probabilities in Percent With X for Less than 2 Percent

A-13

Advisory Issue Time: 18/5AM 18/11AM 18/5PM 18/11PM 19/5AM

Probability End Time: 21/2AM 21/8AM 21/2PM 21/8PM 22/2AM

MBJT 215N 712W 3 7 8 9 11

MYMM 224N 730W X 4 5 6 8

MYSM 241N 745W X 2 3 4 6

MYEG 235N 758W X X 2 2 3

MYNN 251N 775W X X X X 2

ST CROIX VI 12 16 14 14 12

ST THOMAS VI 13 17 16 16 15

SAN JUAN PR 10 15 14 14 14

PONCE PR 8 13 12 12 11

Advisory Issue Time: 19/11AM 19/5PM 19/11PM 20/5AM 20/11AM

Probability End Time: 22/8AM 22/2PM 22/8PM 23/2AM 23/8AM

TAPA 171N 618W 2 X X X X

TKPK 173N 627W 4 X X X X

TNCM 181N 631W 7 3 X X X

TISX 177N 648W 6 3 2 2 2

TIST 183N 650W 9 5 3 3 3

TJPS 180N 666W 7 5 4 4 4

TJSJ 184N 661W 9 6 4 4 4

MDSD 185N 697W 6 7 6 6 6

MDCB 176N 714W 3 4 3 3 4

MTPP 186N 724W 3 6 4 4 5

MDPP 198N 707W 8 11 9 9 9

MBJT 215N 712W 11 16 13 13 12

MYMM 224N 730W 8 14 11 12 11

MYSM 241N 745W 6 14 9 10 10

MYEG 235N 758W 3 10 6 6 7

MYNN 251N 775W X 8 3 4 5

MUGM 200N 751W X 6 3 3 4

MUCM 214N 779W X 3 X X 2

MYAK 241N 776W X 7 3 3 5

MTCA 183N 738W X 4 3 3 3

MYGF 266N 787W X 6 2 2 4

ST CROIX VI 6 3 2 2 2

ST THOMAS VI 9 5 3 3 3

SAN JUAN PR 9 6 4 4 4

PONCE PR 7 5 4 4 4

MARATHON FL X 2 X X X

MIAMI FL X 3 X X 2

W PALM BEACH FL X 4 X X 2

FT PIERCE FL X 3 X X 2

COCOA BEACH FL X 3 X X X

DAYTONA BEACH FL X 2 X X X

MARCO ISLAND FL X 2 X X X

BERMUDA X X 3 X 3
Appendix A, Table A.8

Changes of the Center of Hurricane Andrew Passing within 65 miles

of Listed Locations by Date and Time (EDT) Indicated,

Probabilities in Percent With X for Less than 2 Percent

A-14

Advisory Issue Time: 20/5PM 20/11PM 21/5AM 21/11AM 21/5PM

Probability End Time: 23/2PM 23/8PM 24/2AM 24/8AM 24/2PM

MDSD 185N 697W 4 X X X X

MDCB 176N 714W 2 X X X X

MTPP 186N 724W 4 X 2 2 2

MDPP 198N 707W 7 3 3 3 6

MBJT 215N 712W 12 6 8 6 6

MYMM 224N 730W 13 7 9 8 8

MYSM 241N 745W 13 8 12 11 12

MYEG 235N 758W 10 5 8 9 10

MYNN 251N 775W 8 3 7 9 10

MUGM 200N 751W 5 X 3 4 3

MUCM 214N 779W 4 X 2 5 5

MYAK 241N 776W 7 2 6 8 9

MTCA 183N 738W 3 X 2 2 X

MYGF 266N 787W 6 2 6 9 9

MUHA 230N 824W X X X 3 3

MKJS 185N 779W X X X 2 2

MWCG 193N 814W X X X 2 X

MUCF 221N 805W X X X 4 4

MUSN 216N 826W X X X 2 2

MARATHON FL 2 X X 5 6

MIAMI FL 3 X 2 7 7

W PALM BEACH FL 4 X 3 7 8

FT PIERCE FL 3 X 3 7 8

COCOA BEACH FL 3 X 3 6 7

DAYTONA BEACH FL 2 X 2 6 6

MARCO ISLAND FL 2 X X 5 6

BERMUDA 2 6 3 2 2

MYRTLE BEACH SC 2 X 3 4 4

WILMINGTON NC 2 2 4 3 4

MOREHEAD CITY NC 3 3 5 3 3

CAPE HATTERAS NC 2 3 5 3 3

CHARLESTON SC 2 X 3 4 4

NORFOLK VA X X 3 2 2

OCEAN CITY MD X X 2 X X

SAVANNAH GA X X 2 4 4

KEY WEST FL X X X 5 5

JACKSONVILLE FL X X X 5 6

FT MYERS FL X X X 5 6

VENICE FL X X X 5 5

TAMPA FL X X X 5 5

CEDAR KEY FL X X X 4 4

ST MARKS FL X X X 3 3

APALACHICOLA FL X X X X 3

PANAMA CITY FL X X X X 2

GULF 29N 85W X X X X 2

GULF 29N 87W X X X X 2
Appendix A, Table A.8

Changes of the Center of Hurricane Andrew Passing within 65 miles

of Listed Locations by Date and Time (EDT) Indicated,

Probabilities in Percent With X for Less than 2 Percent

A-15

Advisory Issue Time: 21/11PM 22/5AM 22/11AM 22/5PM 22/11PM

Probability End Time: 24/8PM 25/2AM 25/8AM 25/2PM 25/8PM

MBJT 215N 712W 3 2 X X X

MYMM 224N 730W 6 6 5 X X

MYSM 241N 745W 11 13 17 27 35

MYEG 235N 758W 9 10 12 15 11

MYNN 251N 775W 11 13 17 27 35

MUGM 200N 751W 3 X X X X

MUCM 214N 779W 4 5 6 7 2

MYAK 241N 776W 9 11 14 22 27

MYGF 266N 787W 11 13 17 24 24

MUHA 230N 824W 4 5 8 14 16

MWCG 193N 814W X X X 4 X

MUCF 221N 805W X X X 4 X

MUSN 216N 826W 2 3 6 10 9

MUAN 219N 850W 2 3 5 9 11

MMCZ 205N 869W X X 3 5 5

MARATHON FL 6 8 12 19 23

MIAMI FL 8 10 14 21 23

W PALM BEACH FL 9 11 15 20 20

FT PIERCE FL 9 11 15 18 16

COCOA BEACH FL 9 11 14 16 13

DAYTONA BEACH FL 8 10 12 13 10

MARCO ISLAND FL 7 9 13 19 21

BERMUDA 2 X X X X

MYRTLE BEACH SC 6 6 5 X X

WILMIMGTON NC 5 5 4 X X

MOREHEAD CITY NC 5 5 3 X X

CAPE HATTERAS NC 4 4 2 X X

CHARLESTON SC 6 7 6 3 2

NORFOLK VA 2 2 X X X

SAVANNAH GA 6 7 7 5 4

KEY WEST FL 5 7 11 18 21

JACKSONVILLE FL 7 8 9 9 7

FT MYERS FL 7 9 13 18 19

VENICE FL 6 8 12 17 17

TAMPA FL 7 9 11 15 14

CEDAR KEY FL 6 8 10 13 11

ST MARKS FL 4 6 8 10 9

APALACHICOLA FL 4 5 7 11 10

PANAMA CITY FL 3 5 6 10 9

GULF 29N 85W 4 6 8 12 11

GULF 29N 87W 2 4 6 11 11

PENSACOLA FL 2 3 5 9 8

MOBILE AL 2 X 4 8 7

MMD 210N 897W X X 2 3 5

GULFPORT MS X X 3 8 7

BURAS LA X X 3 8 9

NEW ORLEANS LA X X 3 7 7

NEW IBERIA LA X X 2 5 6

GULF 28N 89W X X 4 10 11
Appendix A, Table A.8

Changes of the Center of Hurricane Andrew Passing within 65 miles

of Listed Locations by Date and Time (EDT) Indicated,

Probabilities in Percent With X for Less than 2 Percent

A-16

Advisory Issue Time: 21/11PM 22/5AM 22/11AM 22/5PM 22/11PM

Probability End Time: 24/8PM 25/2AM 25/8AM 25/2PM 25/8PM

GULF 28N 91W X X 2 7 9

FREEPORT TX X X X 2 4

PORT O CONNOR TX X X X 2 3

PORT AUTHUR TX X X X 3 4

GALVESTON TX X X X 3 4

GULF 28N 93W X X X 5 7

GULF 28N 95W X X X 3 5

GULF 27N 96W X X X 2 4

BROWNSVILLE TX X X X X 3

CORPUS CHRISTI TX X X X X 3

GULF 25N 96W X X X X 4

Advisory Issue Time: 23/5AM 23/11AM 23/5PM

Probability End Time: 26/2AM 26/8AM 26/2PM

MYSM 241N 745W 26 13 X

MYEG 235N 758W 12 2 X

MYNN 251N 775W 51 68 99

MYAK 241N 776W 34 34 17

MYGF 266N 787W 36 43 61

MUHA 230N 824W 18 15 10

MUCF 221N 805W 10 5 X

MUSN 216N 826W 9 5 X

MUAN 219N 850W 11 9 6

MMCZ 205N 869W 5 4 X

MARATHON FL 30 32 37

MIAMI FL 34 40 56

W PALM BEACH FL 30 33 47

FT PIERCE FL 23 23 28

COCOA BEACH FL 11 10 9

DAYTONA BEACH FL 11 10 9

MARCO ISLAND FL 28 31 42

CHARLESTON SC X X X

SAVANNAH GA 3 2 X

KEY WEST FL 27 28 31

JACKSONVILLE FL 7 6 X

FT MYERS FL 25 27 37

VENICE FL 21 22 29

TAMPA FL 17 17 20

CEDAR KEY FL 13 12 13

ST MARKS FL 10 10 9

APALACHICOLA FL 12 12 12

PANAMA CITY FL 12 11 11

GULF 29N 85W 14 14 15

GULF 29N 87W 14 14 15

PENSACOLA FL 11 11 11

MOBILE AL 10 11 11

MMMD 210N 897W 5 5 X

GULFPORT MS 10 11 12
Appendix A, Table A.8

Changes of the Center of Hurricane Andrew Passing within 65 miles

of Listed Locations by Date and Time (EDT) Indicated,

Probabilities in Percent With X for Less than 2 Percent

A-17

Advisory Issue Time: 23/5AM 23/11AM 23/5PM

Probability End Time: 26/2AM 26/8AM 26/2PM

BURAS LA 12 13 14

NEW ORLEANS LA 11 12 13

NEW IBERIA LA 9 11 13

GULF 28N 89W 14 16 17

GULF 28N 91W 12 14 16

FREEPORT TX 7 9 12

PORT O CONNOR TX 6 8 11

PORT AUTHOR TX 7 10 12

GALVESTON TX 7 10 12

MMSO 238N 982W 2 3 X

MMTM 22N 979W X 2 X

GULF 28N 93W 10 12 14

GULF 28N 95W 7 10 12

GULF 27N 96W 6 9 11

BROWNSVILLE TX 4 6 8

CORPUS CHRISTI TX 4 7 9

GULF 25N 96W 4 7 8

Advisory Issue Time: 23/11PM 24/5AM 24/11AM 24/5PM

Probability End Time: 26/8PM 27/2AM 27/8AM 27/2PM

MYGF 266N 787W 60 30 X X

MUHA 230 N 824W 4 2 X X

MUAN 219N 850W 3 3 X X

MMCZ 205N 869W X 2 X X

MARATHON FL 53 62 X X

MIAMI FL 71 99 X X

W PALM BEACH FL 42 73 X X

FT PIERCE FL 14 8 X X

COCOA BEACH FL 7 4 X X

DAYTONA BEACH FL 5 3 X X

MARCO ISLAND FL 50 83 99 X

CHARLESTON SC X X X X

SAVANNAH GA 2 X X X

KEY WEST FL 41 37 X X

JACKSONVILLE FL 4 3 X X

FT MYERS FL 37 67 94 X

VENICE FL 26 46 62 X

TAMPA FL 16 19 6 X

CEDAR KEY FL 10 10 4 X

ST MARKS FL 8 8 6 6

APALACHICOLA FL 11 12 9 8

PANAMA CITY FL 10 11 11 10

GULF 29N 85W 13 15 13 9

GULF 29N 87W 14 16 25 23

PENSACOLA FL 10 12 15 16

MOBILE AL 10 12 17 18

MMMD 210N 897W 3 3 X X

GULFPORT MS 11 13 19 21

BURAS LA 13 16 24 26
Appendix A, Table A.8

Changes of the Center of Hurricane Andrew Passing within 65 miles

of Listed Locations by Date and Time (EDT) Indicated,

Probabilities in Percent With X for Less than 2 Percent

A-18

Advisory Issue Time: 23/11PM 24/5AM 24/11AM 24/5PM

Probability End Time: 26/8PM 27/2AM 27/8AM 27/2PM

NEW ORLEANS LA 12 14 21 23

NEW IBERIA LA 12 14 20 21

GULF 28N 89W 16 19 33 36

GULF 28N 91W 15 17 26 28

FREEPORT TX 10 11 13 13

PORT O CONNOR TX 10 10 11 10

PORT ARTHUR TX 10 12 16 17

GALVESTON TX 11 12 15 15

MMSO 238N 982W 5 3 X X

GULF 28N 93W 13 15 19 19

GULF 28N 95W 11 12 13 13

GULF 27N 96W 10 10 9 8

BROWNSVILLE TX 8 6 4 3

CORPUS CHRISTI TX 9 8 7 6

GULF 25N 96W 9 7 4 4

MMTM 222N 979W 3 X X X

MMTX 210N 974W 2 X X X

Advisory Issue Time: 24/11PM 25/5AM 25/11AM 25/5PM 25/11PM

Probability End Time: 27/8PM 28/2AM 28/8AM 28/2PM 28/8PM

FT PIERCE FL 2 X X X X

COCOA BEACH FL 2 X X X X

DAYTONA BEACH FL 3 X X X X

MARCO ISLAND FL 2 X X X X

CHARLESTON SC 2 X X X X

SAVANNAH GA 3 X X X X

JACKSONVILLE FL 4 X X X X

FT MYERS FL 2 X X X X

VENICE FL 3 X X X X

TAMPA FL 4 X X X X

CEDAR KEY FL 6 X X X X

ST MARKS FL 9 5 X X 6

APALACHICOLA FL 11 7 6 4 6

PANAMA CITY FL 13 8 7 6 7

GULF 29N 85W 11 6 5 4 5

GULF 29N 87W 21 15 9 6 6

PENSACOLA FL 16 13 11 9 11

MOBILE AL 18 16 14 13 11

GULFPORT MS 20 20 18 16 15

BURAS LA 23 32 50 44 64

NEW ORLEANS LA 21 25 36 37 66

NEW IBERIA LA 19 23 38 50 76

GULF 28N 89W 37 68 99 99 6

GULF 28N 91W 24 40 63 99 99

FREEPORT TX 11 16 17 15 5

PORT O CONNOR TX 9 13 13 10 2

PORT ARTHUR TX 14 18 24 28 30

GALVESTON TX 13 17 20 19 11
Appendix A, Table A.8

Changes of the Center of Hurricane Andrew Passing within 65 miles

of Listed Locations by Date and Time (EDT) Indicated,

Probabilities in Percent With X for Less than 2 Percent

A-19

Advisory Issue Time: 24/11PM 25/5AM 25/11AM 25/5PM 25/11PM

Probability End Time: 27/8PM 28/2AM 28/8AM 28/2PM 28/8PM

MMSO 238N 982W X 3 X X X

GULF 28N 93W 17 21 21 22 8

GULF 28N 95W 12 16 14 11 3

GULF 27N 96W 8 12 9 6 X

BROWNSVILLE TX 4 7 5 2 X

CORPUSCHRISTI TX 6 10 9 6 X

GULF 25N 96W 4 7 4 X X
B-1

APPENDIX B

FLORIDA DEATHS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE

TO HURRICANE ANDREW

AUGUST 1992

AGE RACE SEX CAUSE OF DEATH CIRCUMSTANCE

47 BLACK MALE ASPHYXIA DUE TO TREE FELL ON CAMPER

 CHEST COMPRESSION

 

12 WHITE FEMALE BLUNT HEAD TRAUMA STRUCK BY BEAM FROM ROOF WHILE IN

HER HOME

25 WHITE MALE MASSIVE HEAD TRAUMA ROOF OF HOME CAVED IN

74 WHITE MALE MULTIPLE INJURIES TRUCK TRAILER WITHOUT WHEELS (BEING

USED AS A SHELTER)

49 WHITE MALE CRANIOCEREBRAL TRAUMA ROLLED OVER AND COLLAPSED (ELEVEN

OTHERS SURVIVED

32 WHITE MALE DROWNING ABOARD ANCHORED BOAT AT TIME OF 

STORM; LATER FOUND FLOATING IN 

CANAL

62 WHITE MALE MECHANICAL ASPHYXIA TRAILER COLLAPSED

67 WHITE MALE POSITIONAL ASPHYXIA TRAPPED UNDER DEBRIS FROM CEILING

THAT COLLAPSED

80 WHITE FEMALE MECHANICAL ASPHYXIA REFUSED EVACUATION; BURIED UNDER

DEBRIS WHEN TRAILER COLLAPSED

46 WHITE MALE MULTIPLE BLUNT TRAUMA FOUND IN RESIDENCE DESTROYED BY

STORM

49 WHITE MALE MULTIPLE BLUNT TRAUMA LEFT HOME WHEN IT BEGAN TO 

COLLAPSE; KILLED BY FLYING DEBRIS

OUTSIDE HOME

67 WHITE FEMALE MULTIPLE PENETRATING TOWNHOUSE COLLAPSED INJURIES

54 WHITE MALE MULTIPLE BLUNT TRAUMA ROOF COLLAPSED

37 WHITE MALE BLUNT CRANIOCEREBRAL STRUCK BY FLYING OBJECT ABOARD

TRAUMA BOAT, AND FELL OVERBOARD DURING

STORM; LATER WASHED ASHORE ON

ISLAND

56 WHITE MALE DROWNING WASHED OVERBOARD (BODY NEVER

RECOVERED)
APPENDIX C

HURRICANE ANDREW "BEST TRACK" SUMMARY:

AUGUST 16-28, 1992
C-1

Appendix C

Hurricane Andrew "Best Track" Summary: August 16-28, 1992

Date/Time Location Wind Pres Stage Movement Remarks

(UTC) (lat/long) (kts) (mb) (spd/dir)

 (kts)

16/1800 10.8 35.5 25 1010 Depression 280/1817/0000 11.2 37.4 30 1009 280/1817/0600 11.7 39.6 30 1008 280/2017/1200 12.3 42.0 35 1006 285/2217/1800 13.1 44.2 35 1003 Tropical Stm. 285/20 Dvorak 2.518/0000 13.6 46.2 40 1002 290/1818/0600 14.1 48.1 45 1001 285/1818/1200 14.6 49.9 45 1000 285/2018/1800 15.4 51.8 45 1000 285/20 Pulsating deep 19/0000 16.3 53.5 45 1001 290/1719/0600 17.2 55.3 45 1002 295/1619/1200 18.0 56.9 45 1005 295/18 Upper low shear19/1800 18.8 58.3 45 1007 295/18 Wind 63 kts at 20/0000 19.8 59.8 40 1011 295/1820/0600 20.7 60.0 40 1013 305/14 Ill-defined cen20/1200 21.7 60.7 40 1015 305/1420/1800 22.5 61.5 40 1014 310/09 Sustained 54-kt 21/0000 23.2 62.4 45 1014 310/10 Recon unable to 21/0600 23.9 63.3 45 1010 315/12 Pk wind 64 kt 621/1200 24.4 64.2 50 1007 310/10 Better organiza21/1800 24.8 64.9 50 1004 300/09 Shear decreasin22/0000 25.3 65.9 55 1000 300/09 Strong ridge N 22/0600 25.6 67.0 60 994 Hurricane 290/09 Sust. 83-kt wnd 22/1200 25.8 68.3 70 981 275/12 Max. 99-kt wnd 22/1800 25.7 69.7 80 969 270/13 Hcn. watch NW B23/0000 25.6 71.1 90 961 265/1223/0600 25.5 72.5 105 947 270/14 Recon Pk wnd 1223/1200 25.4 74.2 120 933 270/14 Hcn. warning S. 23/1800 25.4 75.8 135 922 270/14 Eye 8 nm./LF El24/0000 25.4 77.5 125 930 270/14 Concentric eye/24/0600 25.4 79.3 120 937 270/16 Landfall S.Fl. 24/1200 25.6 81.2 110 951 275/14 Hcn. watch NW g24/1800 25.8 83.1 115 947 275/16 Clear eye MLB W25/0000 26.2 85.0 115 943 280/1625/0600 26.6 86.7 115 948 280/1525/1200 27.2 88.2 115 946 290/15 Hcn. watch expa25/1800 27.8 89.6 120 941 300/15 Concentric eye26/0000 28.5 90.5 120 937 300/14 2nd min pres 2526/0600 29.2 91.3 115 955 310/11 La Place tornad26/1200 30.1 91.7 80 973 320/10 LA Landfall 26/26/1800 30.9 91.6 50 991 010/07 {At least 10 to27/0000 31.5 91.1 35 995 Tropical Stm. 010/07 & 27 MS, 26/19327/0600 32.1 90.5 30 997 Depression 030/0727/1200 32.8 89.6 30 998 050/0827/1800 33.6 88.4 25 999 050/0828/0000 34.4 86.7 20 1000 050/0828/0600 35.4 84.0 20 1000 050/08 Dissipated
D-1

APPENDIX D

ANDREW’S TOLL ON LOUISIANA

Death and Injury Toll

Hurricane Andrew’s track was well forecast and public health officials had adequate time to

prepare. The Epidemiology Section of Louisiana’s Office of Public Health established an injury

reporting procedure. Hospital emergency rooms and coroners’ offices in 19 parishes were asked to

report hurricane-related health problems. The period of surveillance (August 24 through September

21) included all injuries or illnesses related to the hurricane, including pre-storm preparation and

post-storm recovery and cleanup efforts.

The efforts of the state’s health department’s epidemiological section incorporated the services of

21 hospitals, 1 public utility, and 5 coroner’s offices. In total, they reported 462 hurricane-related

events, including 17 deaths. Of the 17 documented deaths, 8 were directly attributed to Hurricane

Andrew (see appendix D, table D.1). Table D.2 of appendix D lists and describes the 9 deaths

indirectly attributed to Andrew.

Of the non-fatal events, 383 of 445 (86 percent) were injuries and 62 of 445 (14 percent) were

illnesses. Only 17 percent of these cases occurred during Hurricane Andrew; the large majority (79

percent) occurred during the aftermath. High percentages such as this have been documented in

numerous other hurricanes.

Most events happened in or around the home. The most common non-fatal injury was a

cut/laceration/puncture wound, followed by a sprain/strain (appendix D, table D.3).

St. Mary, St. John, and Iberia Parishes incurred the highest injury rates (appendix D, figure D.1).

Figure D.1 depicts the rates of injury and illness by parish. Note the relationship of the hardest hit

parishes to their relative position to Andrew’s landfall point and the eye-wall region.

Future planning for hurricanes should take into account the high rate of lacerations, particularly

during the cleanup phase of the recovery. Based upon projected landfall, areas should prepare well

in advance of landfall for the potential of significantly higher rates of incidence.

Property and Resource Losses

Preliminary data for the 36-parish disaster area indicated that 3,301 single, multifamily, and

mobile homes were destroyed, and 18,247 units received major or minor damages. Data compiled

by a consortium of state agencies and groups with specific responsibilities in agriculture indicated

that estimated agricultural losses would exceed $288 million. Sugarcane yield losses were

estimated at $128.4 million, cotton losses at $68.2 million, and forestry-related losses at $38.6

million. The consortium also estimated losses of $13.2 million for the soybean crop, $12.7 million

for corn, and $9.1 million for rice. 
D-2

F-3 tornado damage to the communities of La Place/Reserve located 30 miles 

west of New Orleans, Louisiana.

Commercial and Recreation

al Boating 

Andrew affected an unknown number of commercial ships, recreational vessels, and barges

throughout the Mississippi basin and the northern gulf coast. 

Documentation, as provided by U.S. Coast Guard, District Eight, revealed that a number of ships

were lost and rescue efforts had to be conducted. Despite efforts by the NWS, local emergency

management, and state officials, many persons were slow to respond or failed to heed warnings.

Louisiana fared much better than south Florida since Andrew missed the major boating areas north

and east of New Orleans. Many boat owners also had enough advance warning and moved their

vessels out of the path of the storm up into one of Louisiana’s many bayous where they had more

protection. To date, no formal estimate of monetary loss has been computed for commercial and

recreational marine interests as the result of Hurricane Andrew.
D-3

Appendix D, Table D.1

Deaths Directly Attributable to Hurricane Andrew (Louisiana)

August 1992

(Source: Center for Disease Control)

AGE RACE SEX CAUSE OF DEATH CIRCUMSTANCE

21 ASIAN MALE DROWNING COMMERCIAL FISHING

LOST DURING ANDREW

IN INTERNATIONAL

WATERS (GULF OF

MEXICO) WITH FIVE

OTHERS

33 ASIAN MALE DROWNING (SAME AS ABOVE)

26 ASIAN MALE DROWNING (SAME AS ABOVE)

30 ASIAN MALE DROWNING (SAME AS ABOVE)

44 ASIAN MALE DROWNING (SAME AS ABOVE)

?? ASIAN MALE DROWNING (SAME AS ABOVE)

2 WHITE FEMALE HEMORRAGE SECONDARY INJURED WHEN

TO FRACTURES OF HEAD, HURRICANE-RELATED

NECK, AND TROSO TORNADO STRUCK HOME

63 WHITE MALE CRUSHING INJURIES (SAME AS ABOVE)

TO HEAD AND NECK
D-4

Appendix D, Table D.2

Deaths Indirectly Attributable to Hurricane Andrew (Louisiana)

August 1992

(Source: Centers for Disease Control)

AGE RACE SEX CAUSE OF DEATH CIRCUMSTANCE

?? WHITE MALE MULTIPLE TRAUMATIC MOTOR VEHICLE

INJURIES ACCIDENT DURING

EVACUATION

50 WHITE FEMALE MULTIPLE BLUNT FORCE MOTOR VEHICLE

TRAUMA ACCIDENT; BECAME

DISORIENTED WHILE

DRIVING DURING THE

STORM

34 WHITE MALE ELECTROCUTION CLEARING YARD DEBRIS

WHEN CAME IN CONTACT

WITH LIVE ELECTRICAL

POLE

42 WHITE MALE CRUSH INJURIES TO FALL FROM TREE WHILE

TORSO CUTTING TREE FROM

HOME

33 WHITE MALE POSSIBLE ELECTROCUTION WORKING ON

ELECTRICAL

AND CARDIOPULMONARY POLE

ARREST

79 WHITE MALE CARDIAC ARREST COMPLAINED OF

SHORTNESS OF BREATH

86 BLACK MALE ASPHYXIATION (NO INFORMATION)

44 BLACK MALE CARDIAC ARREST (NO INFORMATION)

65 WHITE MALE CARDIAC ARREST COMPLAINED OF CHEST

PAIN
D-5

Appendix D, Table D.3

Nature of Hurricane Andrew-related

Injury and Illness in Louisiana

August 24-September 21, 1992

(Source: Centers for Disease Control)

 Deaths Injury/Illness

Nature Frequency (%) Frequency (%)

Cut/laceration/puncture 0 184 (41)

Sprain/strain 0 49 (11)

Contusion/impact 3 (19) 46 (10)

Insect bite/sting 0 23 (5)

Rash 0 23 (5)

Fall 1 (6) 23 (5)

Crush 1 (6) 15 (4)

Burn 0 10 (2)

Anxiety 0 8 (2)

Drowning 6 (37) 0

Dog bite 0 1 (.2)

Asphyxiation 1 (6) 0

Electrocution 2 (12) 1 (.2)

Other 3 (19) 62 (14)

TOTAL 17 (100) 445 (100)
D-6

Figure D.1 & Rates of injury and illness by parish.

(Source: Centers for Disease Control)
E-1

APPENDIX E

LOUISIANA DAMAGE DESCRIPTION

Wind and Tornadoes

Most storm-related damage was caused by wind, wind-blown rain, and tornadoes. Post storm

summaries compiled by WSFO Slidell confirmed 14 tornadoes. There were numerous additional

reports of small tornadoes and funnel clouds. In Mississippi, 27 tornadoes were confirmed with

numerous tornado and funnel cloud reports received. 

In south Louisiana, tornadoes ranged from F-0 to F-3 on the Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale, Figure

4. A tornado of F-3 intensity touched down near the subdivision of Belle Pointe near Reserve in St.

John the Baptist Parish. The tornado skipped along a 9- to 10-mile path between La Place and

Reserve on the evening of August 25. The best estimate of tornado inflicted damage is excess of $20

million. Table E.1 of appendix E presents a breakdown of the tornado damage inflicted upon St. John

the Baptist Parish. 

St. Mary and Iberia Parishes received widespread wind and wind-blown rain damage. In all areas,

mobile homes were the most susceptible to damage or destruction. Many mobile homes fell victim to

extreme wind loads and airborne debris caused by Andrew. Even in the coastal areas where mobile

homes were "cradled" and elevated, the cradled foundations remained intact, but the mobile homes

mounted to these foundations were often heavily damaged or destroyed. Other minor to moderate

wind damage occurred throughout much of the declared disaster area (Disaster Declaration Map,

Appendix E, Figure E.1), including damaged building roofs and windows.

Flooding

Although Andrew’s rainfall pattern (see figure E.2, appendix E) in Louisiana was similar to other

hurricanes making landfall in the central gulf coast region both in terms of magnitude and

distribution, very little in the way of significant flooding developed in Louisiana. This was primarily

due to the fact that hydrologic conditions prior to Hurricane Andrew’s arrival in Louisiana were quite

dry. Minor to moderate river flooding did develop along portions of several rivers in Louisiana, but

damages caused by the flooding were limited. Instead, the flooding caused mainly nuisance-type

problems, such as road closures, minor urban flooding, and agricultural flooding.
E-2

Storm Surge

The majority of flood damage caused by Hurricane Andrew was storm surge related and occurred in

Lower Terrebonne Parish. Damage, in general, was minimal as surge values were half their expected

levels in the vicinity of Cocodrie (7-9 ft), Dulac and Chauvin (4-5 ft), and Montegut (2-4 ft). Even so,

a high percentage of older homes and businesses in Cocodrie suffered extensive damage.

The highest recorded storm surge mark was recorded at Luke’s Landing along East Cote Blanche Bay,

where 8.2 feet was observed at a USACE water level gauge. Several other gauges recorded surge

heights over 6 feet during Andrew. Lake Pontchartrain was raised to a level of approximately 4.5 feet

NGVD. Fortunately, these surge heights occurred shortly before the occurrence of normal

(astronomical) high tide. In the area impacted by Andrew, this would have added about 1 foot to the

observed readings. Tidal traces indicate that prior to Andrew’s landfall, water was being forced away

from the coastline by offshore winds, resulting in depressed water levels (below MSL). As the eye

passed and the winds became onshore, water levels rose rapidly and reached their observed peaks.

Impact on Fisheries and Wildlife

Louisiana’s legendary fisheries received a severe blow when Andrew slid along the Louisiana coast

before making landfall. Fresh water fish kill estimates have been estimated at nearly $160 million.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries biologists estimate that, of this total, nearly 5 million

were large mouth bass valued at $21 million. In the Atchafalaya Basin, it has been estimated that

nearly 182 million fresh water fish have died. Saltwater fish biologists have compiled fish kill counts

at beaches and bays in south Terrebonne Parish, where Andrew was most brutal. They calculated

that 9.4 million fish suffocated as of August 31. The loss of fish native to this area is estimated at $8

million.

While the numbers of marine fishes killed is not expected to impact greatly the coastal recreational

fishing, biologists estimate conservatively that the coastal sports industry will suffer a loss of $12

million during September and October of 1992. Louisiana’s marine recreational fishing industry

depends on the accessibility to coastal waters and the availability of marine facilities. These have

both suffered greatly due to the effects of Andrew. 

The commercial fishing industry also is expected to be heavily impacted for months. Louisiana

harvests 3.5 million pounds of seafood during September and October at an estimated retail value of

$210 million. It was estimated that the industry would experience an immediate loss of $54 million.

This figure does not reflect direct physical damage to shoreside support facilities or the loss of

markets. Similar losses were inflicted on wildlife resources, furbearers, and alligators. 

The total monetary loss to the state based on these studies, including losses to natural resources,

impacts on industry, and impacts on the department, is nearly $266 million. The total is expected to

rise even higher. The above figures were provided by the Information and Education Division of the

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
E-3

Appendix E, Table E.1

St. John the Baptist Parish

Damage Assessment

(Source: St. John the Baptist Parish)

PRIVATE SECTOR

Housing $ 6,726,250

 (Homes/Mobile Homes)

Business/Commercial $ 3,428,500 $10,154,750

PUBLIC BUILDINGS $ 1,957,500

AGRICULTURE

 

Sugar Cane $ 1,000,000

Soy Bean $ 100,000 $ 1,100,000

ELECTRICAL UTILITY $ 1,500,000

TOTAL FOR THE PARISH $14,712,250
E-4

Figure E.1 & Disaster Declaration Map.

(Source: FEMA)
E-5

Figure E.2 & Louisiana Rainfall Totals and Analysis

for Hurricane Andrew.
E-6

Appendix E, Table E.2

Summary of Damage

(Source: NWS Lower Mississippi River Forecast Center)

Platforms Toppled 14

Platforms Leaning 4

Satellites Toppled 31

Satellites Leaning 82

Structural Damage 112

Pollution Incidents 7

Fires 2

Drift 5

Impact on the Petroleum Industry

The petroleum industry plays a large role in the economy of Louisiana. The gulf coast from Texas

to Mississippi is dotted by numerous submerged wells and oil well structures (platforms), including

appurtenances, such as satellite wells and oil pipes. The largest concentration of oil platforms,

satellites, and drilling rigs are located off the Louisiana coast. The total number of oil platforms

and satellites is approximately 3,800, with about 150 oil drilling rigs. These facilities are

extremely vulnerable to hurricanes. Their destruction poses a major threat to the ecology of the

gulf. Appendix E, table E.2, is a summary of hurricane damage as a result of Andrew.

In addition to platforms damaged, 309 pipelines were damaged. Damage also was inflicted on oil

storage tanks both onshore and offshore. The Ship Shoal and South Timbalier areas suffered the

most damage to their pipeline network (appendix E, figure E.3). The damage inflicted upon the

various petroleum networks is congruent to the region along Andrew’s track where the greatest

damage would be expected. The various petroleum companies operating in the gulf have as yet

not provided damage estimates from Andrew. The petroleum industry estimates a one-half billion

dollars in losses due to the damaged equipment and the interruption of operations caused by the

storm.

The U.S. Coast Guard, District Eight, reported working as many as 79 reports of pollution or lost

oil as a result of Andrew. Spill emanated from a variety of sources, with approximately two-thirds

offshore in Federal and state waters. Most spills were considered minor, but one ruptured pipeline

released between 300 and 500 barrels of oil.

Considering the number of wells and pipelines, the petroleum industry fared very well. This can

be attributed to the safety efforts employed by the industry and the efforts that they put into their

awareness and preparedness programs.
E-7

Figure E.3 & Coastal Petroleum Pipeline Network.

(Source: U.S. Department of the Interior)
F-1

APPENDIX F

INTERAGENCY COORDINATING

COMMITTEE ON HURRICANES (ICCOH)

Background

The ICCOH consists of a group of agencies brought together to broaden the areas of cooperation

between the agencies in matters dealing with hurricane-related activities. The primary agencies

involved are NOAA, FEMA, USACE, and the American Red Cross.

Following Hurricane Hugo, great interest was placed on the National Hurricane Program. 

Unfortunately, the Loma Prieta earthquake redirected this interest to the National Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Program. Subsequently, great strides were realized in the Earthquake

Preparedness Program. Following Andrew, the most devastating natural disaster in American

history, the ICCOH toured the devastated area and came to the conclusion that a formal national

hurricane preparedness program was needed that emphasized evacuation but had funding to

actively pursue mitigation activities.

Finding

When a tropical cyclone strikes, the combination of wind, rain, and storm surge can cause

enormous sociological, economical, and ecological damage. It threatens the lives and livelihood of

all who lie in its path. Although a tropical cyclone can move across an area in only a few hours,

billions of dollars in property can be lost and many deaths and injuries can occur. The

sociopolitical infrastructure, including highways, communications systems, power grids, and

pipelines can be decimated. The amount of time necessary to recover fully from such a catastrophe

may require years. 

The United States coast from Brownsville, Texas, to East Port, Maine, is subject to the ravages of

hurricanes as are the Hawaiian Islands and the United States protectorates in the Pacific Ocean

and Caribbean Sea. Today, there is a growing awareness in the United States that hurricanes are

a national threat, both economically and sociologically. Moreover, the direct, localized effects of a

major hurricane does not fully define the full scope of its effects.

Balancing the risks of the Nation’s hurricane threat are technology and understanding which can

mitigate much of the damaging effects of hurricanes. Modern hurricane forecasting and hurricane

evacuation planning have dramatically reduced the loss of life in recent hurricane events. 

Methods have been developed which, when fully implemented, will reduce further the effects of

storms both to life and property. Presently, several Federal agencies are engaged in hurricane

impact mitigation activities. Still, a cooperative, interagency program to develop such activities is

not in place.
F-2

The principle cooperative, multiagency hurricane activity is the Federal Hurricane Preparedness

Program (HPP). The HPP, through its Hurricane Evacuation Study program, has been extremely

effective in reducing loss of life caused by storm surge drowning. However, to date it has done

relatively little to address the need to mitigate structural damage caused by hurricane-induced

wind. The enormous damage caused by Hurricane Andrew is compelling evidence that the present

Federal hurricane program is inadequate. It presents strong argument to create a comprehensive

hurricane program which recognizes the need to reduce future loss of life and property from all

effects of hurricanes, including wind.

Recommendation

In recognition of the need for such a comprehensive Federal hurricane hazard mitigation program,

the ICCOH proposes establishing a National Tropical Cyclone Hazard Reduction Program,

comparable to the earthquake mitigation program which gained greater prominence and support

after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
G-1

APPENDIX G

SAFFIR-SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE

Category Definition&Effects

ONE Winds 74-95 mph: No real damage to building structures. Damage

primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Also, some

coastal road flooding and minor pier damage.

TWO Winds 96-110 mph: Some roofing material, door, and window damage to

buildings. Considerable damage to vegetation, mobile homes, and piers. 

Coastal and low-lying escape routes flood 2-4 hours before arrival of center. 

Small craft in unprotected anchorages break moorings.

THREE Winds 111-130 mph: Some structural damage to small residences and

utility buildings with a minor amount of curtainwall failures. Mobile homes

are destroyed. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures with

larger structures damaged by floating debris. Terrain continuously lower

than 5 feet ASL may be flooded inland 8 miles or more.

FOUR Winds 131-155 mph: More extensive curtainwall failures with some

complete roof structure failure on small residences. Major erosion of beach

areas. Major damage to lower floors of structures near the shore. Terrain

continuously lower than 10 feet ASL may be flooded requiring massive

evacuation of residential areas inland as far as 6 miles.

FIVE Winds greater than 155 mph: Complete roof failure on many residences

and industrial buildings. Some complete building failures with small utility

buildings blown over or away. Major damage to lower floors of all structures

located less than 15 feet ASL and within 500 yards of the shoreline. Massive

evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5 to 10 miles of the

shoreline may be required.
AFTERWORD

OUTSIDE CONSULTANT’S SUPPLEMENT

TO THE DISASTER SURVEY REPORT ON

HURRICANE ANDREW

SUBMITTED TO THE NOAA ADMINISTRATOR

NOTE: The views and opinions expressed in the following

commentary do not necessarily reflect the views and

opinions of NOAA, the National Weather Service, or any of

the other outside consultants involved in the Hurricane

Andrew Disaster Survey Report.

Natural Disaster Surveys performed after catastrophic weather events call for the

participation of a consultant outside the government. While serving in that role in Louisiana

during the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew (and later in Hawaii, following Hurricane Iniki), I

was struck by the uniformly high regard for the National Weather Service expressed by the

public, the emergency management community, and local governmental officials. Though

there was an occasional crack that the Weather Service is unable to get the daily forecasts

right, there was uniform trust in NWS pronouncements on the hurricane threat.

Very few agencies of the Federal Government are viewed so positively by the public

and state officials as the National Weather Service.

NWS Staffing Issues

Local emergency managers’ trust of NWS personnel is largely the result of regular contact over

a long period of time preceding the hurricane threat, often several years. During the

preparation for Hurricane Andrew, emergency managers did not question the competence of

the NWS. In interviews, they explicitly attributed this to the long-standing relationship

between the NWS offices and their local community. Emergency managers and municipal

leaders in Louisiana also noted that they trusted the local NWS offices to evaluate information

coming from the National Hurricane Center to be sure that it was appropriate for their locale

before passing it on.

Plans should be made to maintain the high level of individual contact between the

NWS staff and local emergency managers, despite the reduction in number of offices

scheduled under the modernization plan. Furthermore, multiple simultaneous

changes in senior personnel at local NWS facilities should be avoided unless that

office has lost the trust of its community.

The emergency managers also based their trust of NWS on the expertise of their regular NWS

contacts. In particular, several emergency managers spoke of increased confidence from the

fact that they received information directly from NWS personnel involved in making forecasts,

rather than from individuals whose responsibilities had been limited to preparedness issues

and communications.
The individuals responsible for liaison with emergency managers, regardless of

their titles, should have regular forecasting duties. With the scheduled reduction in

the number of offices, this may require that more than one individual per office

have outreach responsibilities to the emergency management community, especially

if the amount of contact is not to be reduced.

The public’s trust in the NWS was significantly greater than that placed in media

meteorologists, even when media personnel were actually meteorologists and not just weather

readers. Concern was expressed to us that private providers of weather information have a

vested interest in magnifying threats and leaving issues unsettled for the purpose of keeping

the public coming back to them for more information. The NWS was viewed as having no goal

except that of ensuring public safety. Continually larger amounts of weather information are

wholesaled by the government and then further disseminated by commercial sources.

The government needs to be careful that privatization of services does not result in

decreased trust in the information provided, particularly when public safety is

involved.

Disaster Survey Management

The procedures for Natural Disaster Surveys following catastrophic events specify a disaster

survey team of at least six individuals, with at least two of them from NOAA but outside NWS

(including the team leader) and one of them from outside the government. However, there

appears to be confusion within NWS headquarters over whether disaster survey reports should

be largely NWS staff-authored exercises, with some outside advice, or an objective review

combining opinions of the NWS staff, other NOAA staff, and outsiders. To encourage

objectivity in disaster surveys of NWS activities, 

NOAA should affirm that disaster surveys are a team process organized by NOAA

and not subject to control by NWS headquarters.

The NOAA members of the Disaster Survey Team were fairly unforgiving in their evaluation of

their fellow NOAA employees and honest in their evaluation of the efforts of the NWS and

NOAA. Also, the NWS employees we interviewed were quite candid in describing and

evaluating their own performance. This is to be commended. The large number of NOAA

employees on the Team, chosen for their broad range of expertise, were able to examine NWS

and NOAA activities much more efficiently than a team largely composed of outsiders could. 

However, in making recommendations within this report, NOAA staff on the Team were not

fully able to disentangle themselves from their positions. This sometimes led to

recommendations that were limited by concern for the internal response to those

recommendations, to possibly more conservative recommendations than outsiders would have

made, and to recommendations that occasionally seemed designed mostly to promote ongoing

or proposed NOAA programs. 

Although the total Disaster Survey Team for Hurricane Andrew had four members who were

not NOAA staff, the team largely functioned as two disconnected parts (one for Florida and one

for Louisiana), each with only two outsiders. Furthermore, one of those assigned to each state

had very strong ties to NOAA. This left only two true outsiders, who then had no opportunity

to interact since they were dispatched to different states. A stronger group of outside

consultants might be more able to provide useful recommendations to NOAA on its

preparedness and response to severe weather events. However, obtaining outside consultants
on the extremely short notice available for assembling disaster survey teams is admittedly

difficult.

For at least one Disaster Survey Team each year, strong efforts should be made to

have at least three members without strong ties to NOAA.

While contributing to this report, as well as to the one on Hurricane Iniki, this outside

consultant has been frustrated by some of his interactions with the team member assigned

from NWS Headquarters. The problems appear to be related to how disaster survey reports

are viewed by NWS management, rather than to the personalities of the individuals. The

transmittal memorandum for the procedures on Natural Disaster Surveys notes that "Reports

are normally written through a cooperative effort of team members." However, the technical

leader at NWS Headquarters, through dual roles as team member and report coordinator, has

far too great control over the final product. The model for report preparation used by the

National Research Council, where the responsible staff member is knowledgeable in the field

but not an author of the report, prevents staff from overly controlling the results without losing

the value of their expertise.

In setting up Disaster Survey Teams, NOAA should continue to make at least one

member of NWS Headquarters available. However, this individual should serve only

as staff for the Team, not as a member.

There is great interest in the response of NOAA, as well as the responses of more local agencies

discussed in disaster survey reports, to hurricane threats. Disasters provide perhaps NOAA’s

best chance to evaluate the success and resilience of NWS operations. Still, it has taken a long

time to prepare this report, largely because it was not part of anyone’s regular responsibilities,

much less their primary focus. 

Preparation of disaster surveys should be given higher priority. NWS or NOAA

Headquarters should budget more time for staff to assist in producing disaster

surveys. In particular, some of the responsibilities for the staff member in charge of

coordinating production must be shifted if a report of high quality is to be produced

in a timely manner.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark David Handel, Sc.D.