[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
0'T OF Co NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC 24 * S~~~~~~~~~~~~t,4~~~~~~~TES O0 HURRICANE EXPERIENCE LEVELS OF COASTAL COUNTY POPULATIONS - TEXAS TO MAINE Paul J. Hebert, Glenn Taylor (Retired), and Robert A. Case NHC, Miami, Florida National Hurricane Center Miami, Florida June 1984 QC 995 .D672 no.24 nloa a NATIONAL OCEANIC AND National Weather ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Service NOAA TECHNICAL MrEMDRIDA NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER SUBSERIES The National Weather Service National Hurricane Center (NHC) subseries provides an informal medium for the documentation and quick dissemination of results not appropriate, or not yet ready, for formal publication. The series is used to report on work in progress, to describe technical pro- cedures and practices, or to relate progress to a limited audience and hence will not be widely distributed. Technical Memoranda originated at the National Hurricane Center prior to the establishment of this series are listed below. They were published as ESSA Technical Memoranda, Southern Region (SRTM); ESSA Technical Memoranda, WBTM; or NOAA Technical Memoranda, NWS. Beginning with WBTM SR 38, the papers are available from the National Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22151. Price $2.75 per copy; $1.45 microfiche. Order by accession number shown in parenthesis at end of each entry. ESSA Technical Memoranda SRTM 28 The Weather Distribution with Upper Tropospheric Cold Lows in the Tropics. Neil L. Frank - September 1966 WBTM SR 38 Florida Hurricanes. Gordon E. Dunn and Staff NHC - November 1967 (PB 182 220) WBTM SR 42 Memorable Hurricanes of the United States Since 1873. Arnold L. Sugg and Robert L. Carrodus - January 1969 (PB 182 228) WBTM SR 44 Climatology of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones by Two and One-Half Degree Latitude-Longitude Boxes. John R. Hope and Charles J. Neumann - February 1969 (PB 183 308) WBTM SR 45 On the Maximum Sustained Winds Occurring in Atlantic Hurricanes. Charles Holliday - May 1969 (PB 184 609) WBTM SR 46 Hemispheric Circulation and Anomaly Patterns Observed When Tropical Storms Reach Hurricane Intensity. Paul J. Hebert, NHC and Banner I. Miller, NHRL - May 1969 (PB 184 610) WBTM SR 47 Disturbances in the Tropical and Equatorial Atlantic. R. H. Simpson - June 1969 (PB 184 740) WBTM SR 49 A Mean Storm Surge Profile. Arnold L. Sugg - December 1969 (PB 188 422) WBTM SR 50 A Reassessment of the Hurricane Prediction Problem. Robert H. Simpson - February 1970 (PB 189 846) WBTM SR 51 The Satellite Applications Section of the National Hurricane Center. R. H. Simpson and D. C. Gaby - September 1970 (COM 71 00005) NOAA Technical Memoranda NWS NWS SR 53 The Decision Process in Hurricane Forecasting. R. H. Simpson - January 1971 (COM 71 00336) NWS SR 55 Digitized Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Tracks. John R. Hope and Charles J. Neumann - February 1971 (COM 71 00984) NWS SR 56 Memorable Hurricanes of the United States Since 1873. Arnold Sugg, Leonard G. Pardue and Robert L. Carrodus - April 1971 (COM 71 00610) NWS SR 58 Atlantic Hurricane Frequencies Along the U. S. Coastline. R. H. Simpson and Miles B. Lawrence - June 1971 (COM 71 00796) NWS SR 62 An Alternate to the HURRAN (Hurricane Analog) Tropical Cyclone Forecast System. Charles J. Neumann - January 1972 (COM 72 10351) NWS SR 63 A Statistical Method of Combining Synoptic and Empirical Tropical Cyclone Prediction Systems. Charles J. Neumann, John R. Hope and Banner I. Miller - May 1972 (COM 72 10553) NWS SR 69 Statistical-Dynamical Prediction of Tropical Cyclone Motion. Charles J. Neumann and Miles B. Lawrence - April 1973 (COM 73 10728) NWS SR 71 A Decision Procedure for Application in Predicting the Landfall of Hurricanes. R. H. Simpson and Brian R. Jarvinen - August 1973 (COM 73-11663/AS) NWS SR 72 Objective Analysis of the Sea Surface Temperature. Brian R. Jarvinen - August 1973 (COM 73-11643) NWS SR 81 The Effect of Initial Data Uncertainties on the Performance of Statistical Tropical Cyclone Prediction Models. Charles J. Neumann - March 1975 (COM 75-10483/AS) NWS SR 82 A Statistical Study of Tropical Cyclone Positioning Errors with Economic Applications. Charles J. Neumann - March 1975 (COM 75-11362/AS) NWS SR 83 A Satellite Classification Technique for Subtropical Cyclones. Paul J. Hebert and Kenneth O. Poteat - July 1975 (COM 75-11220/AS) NWS NHC I Annual Data and Verification Tabulation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones 1974. John R. Hope and Staff, NHC - January 1976 (PB285261/AS) NWS NHC 2 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation - Atlantic Tropical Cyclones 1975. Paul J. Hebert and Staff, NHC - January 1977 (PB285263/AS) NWS NHC 3 Intensification Criteria for Tropical Depressions in the Western North Atlantic. Paul J. Hebert - April 1977 (PB285415/AS) NWS NHC 4 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones 1976. Paul J. Hebert and Staff, NHC - May 1977 (PB285262/AS) NWS NHC 5 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Tracks by 5-, 10-, 15-, and 30-Day Periods. Brian J. Jarvinen and Charles J. Neumann - May 1978 (PB284009/AS) NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC 24 HURRICANE EXPERIENCE LEVELS OF COASTAL COUNTY POPULATIONS - TEXAS TO MAINE Paul J. Hebert, Glenn Taylor (Retired), and Robert A, Case NHC,. Miami, Florida U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NO;; COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOESON AVENUE National Hurricane Center CHARLESTON SC 4T05- :4 Miami, Florida June 1984 CD ---Property of CSC Library UNITED STATES National Oceanic and National Weather OEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Atmospherinc Administration Service ' Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary John V. Byrne. Administrator Richard E. Hallgren. Director en- CONTENTS Page Abstract .1.............................. I Introduction ............................. 1 Data Sources ............................. 3 Purpose ............................... 3 Procedure .............................. 3 Discussion .............................. 8 Summary ............................... 17 Acknowledgements ........................... 17 References .............................. 18 Appendix A: The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale ........... 19 Appendix B: Individual Coastal County Hurricane Climatology/Population Graphs, Texas to Maine .................... 21 Appendix C: A Tabular Hurricane Climatology by Counties, Texas to Maine, 1900-1982 .......... 118 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. - Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale Ranges ........... 2 Table 2. - Coastal County Population by State, 1980, and at the Time of the Last Major Hurricane ........ 4 Table 3. - Examples of Hurricane Classifications on the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale ............ 6 Table 4a. - Number of Hurricanes (Direct Hits) affecting U.S. and Individual States 1900-1982 according to Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale ...... 11 Table 4b. - Chronological List of All Hurricanes Which Affected the U.S. 1900-1982, Including Category by States .................. 12 Table 5 - Coastal County Population by States (1980) ........ 125 HURRICANE EXPERIENCE LEVELS OF COASTAL COUNTY POPULATIONS FROM TEXAS TO MAINE by Paul J. Hebert, Glenn Taylor (Retired), and Robert A. Case (This publication updates the previous version by Hebert and Taylor, published in 1975.) ABSTRACT Population graphs for the period 1900-1980 have been prepared for coastal counties from Texas to Maine which could be affected significantly by hurricane winds and/or tides. The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale (range 1-5) has been used to develop a hurricane climatology for each county for the period 1900-19a2. The combined statistics graphically illustrate that nearly 80 percent of all Atlantic and Gulf coastal residents of the United States2have never experienced the effects of a direct hit by a major hurricane. INTRODUCTION A series of hurricane workshops was conducted durinq the Spring of 1974 by Dr. Neil Frank, Director, National Hurricane Center (NHC), and his staff. The basic purpose of these works~hops was to exchange ideas and information with National Weather Service officials representing all Gulf and Atlantic coastal-.stations and to discuss operational hurricane problems. Some of the materials prepared for the workshops are the basis for this paper. Population statistics indicate a continued trend in recent years of rapid population increases along Atlantic and Gulf coastal areas. This trend, along with the relatively low frequency of hurricanes and low hurricane experience level of nearly 32 million coastal residents, has become an item of major concern at the National Hurricane Center. 1See Table I and Appendix A. 2Amajor hurricane is in category 3, 4 or 5 on the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale, and is comparable to a Great Hurricane in several other referenced publications. Table 1o' Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale Ranges Scale Central Pressure Winds Surge Damage Number (Mph) (Ft.) (Category) Millibars Inches I > 980 > 28.94 74 - 95 4 - 5 Minimal 2 965 - 979 28.50 - 28.91 96 - 110 6 - 8 Moderate 3 945 - 964 27.91 - 28.47 111 - 130 9 - 12 Extensive 4 920 - 944 27.17 - 27.88 131 - 155 13 - 18 Extreme 5 < 920 < 27.17 > 155 > 18 Catastrophic DATA SOURCES Population statistics were obtained from the U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, publications. Hurricane information was obtained by checking conventional data sources plus available materials in NHC files and some material from local station files.. PURPOSE The primary purpose of this study is to illustrate the increase in Gulf and Atlantic coastal populations in recent years and to indicate the low hurricane experience level of a large majority of these coastal residents. While many people have experienced fringe conditions of a major hurri cane or the direct effects of a weaker hurricane, it is pointed out that a relatively small percentage of the coastal population have experienced a direct hit by a major hurricane. It is hoped that the information in this paper will help coastal residents and disaster preparedness groups to substitute educa- tion for hurricane experience. A simple comparison of numbers (Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale Numbers 1-5) relating hurricanes of recent experience to major or historical hurricanes of the past has been found to be most effective by NHC personnel in addressing various groups concerning hurricane disaster potential. PROCEDURE Population statistics for each coastal county from Texas to Maine were obtained from the U. S. Bureau of the Census publi- cations for the period 1900-1980. This information was plotted on individual graphs for each county, 175 in all. A hurricane climatology, described below, was entered along the bottom of each graph indicating the year and severity of each hurricane affecting the county from 1900 through 1982t The complete col- lection of county graphs is included as Appendix B. A tabulation was made for each Gulf and Atlantic coastal state listing coastal county populations in 1980 and at the time of the last major hurricane (Scale numbers 3-5) since 1900. This is illustrated in Table 2. The population differences were listed for each state and percentages calculated giving an indi- cation of hurricane experience levels for Gulf and Atlantic coastal residents. *No hurricanes hit the Gulf or Atlantic coastal counties during the years 1981 and 1982. 3 Table 2. Coastal county population by state showing percentage of residents who have never experienced a direct hit by a major hurricane (>3 on Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale). AT LAST1'2 % OF MAJOR 1980 STATE 1980 HURRICANE INCREASE TOTAL TEXAS 3,809,992 1,592,605 2,217,387 58.2% LOUISIANA 1,575,591 1,145,440 430,151 27.3% MISSISSIPPI 300,217 170,467 129,750 43.2% ALABAMA 442,819 436,206 6,613 1.5% FLORIDA 7,702,337 1,169,273 6,533,064 84.8% GEORGIA 326,382 326,382 100.0% S.CAROLINA 518,228 344,700 173,528 33.5% N.CAROLINA 492,467 356,327 136,140 27.6% VIRGINIA 1,274,579 28,901 1,245,678 97.7% MARYLAND 2,350,248 2,350,248 100.0% DELAWARE 595,225 595,225 100.0% NEW JERSEY 3,683,930 3,683,930 100.0% NEW YORK 10,543,442 666,784 9,876,658 93.7% CONNECTICUT 1,935,906 1,108,374 827,532 42.7% RHODE ISLAND 947,154 818,933 128,221 13o5% MASSACHUSETTS 2,932,292 926,619 2,005,774 68.4% NEW HAMPSHIRE 190,345 190,345 100.0% MAINE 548,000 548,000 100.0% ALL 40,169,295 31,404,666 78�2% State totals are based on individual county populations at time of last major hurricane since 1900 (different years). 2Significant changes in Texas, Florida, New York, and Massachusetts from a preliminary version of this table are a result of a more detailed study of individual counties. 4 A hurricane climatology, based upon the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale (with atmospheric pressure ranges adapted), was prepared for the 83-year period 1900-1982 based on the following guide- lines: 1. Scale numbers (1-5), as indicated in Table 1, were assigned to hurricanes primarily based on estimated central pressure values at the time of landfall. A certain amount of sub- jectivity is inherent in this type of classification, par- ti cul arly with hurri canes during earlier years and with those moving inland in sparsely-settled areas. In view of this, some hurricanes near the borderline between two scale numbers might be classified one way or the other based on various considerations, such as storm surge. It should be pointed out that flooding from excessive rain- fall during the life of a hurricane was not a criterion in selecting scale numbers. Hurricanes DIANE 1955 and AGNES 1972 for example, relatively weak hurricanes, were disas- trous flood-makers and resulted in widespread flood damage in several states; however, based on central pressures at the time of landfall, both hurricanes were in category 1. In some cases, hurricanes traversing a long path across many states may change scale numbers one or more times before dissipating. A good example of this is Hurricane DONNA of 1960, which changed from category 4 all the way down to category I during its journey between Florida and Maine (see Table 3). Examples of hurricanes in each category of the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale are listed in Table 3. The five most recent hurricanes are listed for categories 1-3 for Florida and the remainder of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Three additional dates are indicated for category 3 on the Atlantic coast in order to include the hurricanes of 1938 and 1944, memorable storms for that region. The hurricanes listed for scale numbers 4 and 5 are totals for the 83-year period 1900-1982, inclusive. (NOTE: Prior to 1950, names were not used in connection with hurricanes. For three years, 1950-1952, the phonetic alphabet was used for naming hurricanes, e.g., ABLE, BAKER, CHARLIE, etc ... Female names were used for naming hurricanes from 1953 to 1978. Since 1979 alternating male/female names have been used.) 2. After each hurricane had been assigned a scale number, all coastal counties from Texas to Maine were examined to deter- mine which counties received direct hits and which received indirect hits by hurricanes near to, or crossing the coast since 1900. In addition to hurricanes which have occurred since 1974 (last year of the previous version), a few hurricanes have been added, or categories of others changed, based on additional information. Table 3. - Examples of Hurricane Classification on the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale Category Gulf Coast Florida Atlantic Coast I BOB 1979 (LA) AGNES 1972 (NW) BELLE 1976 (NY) BABE 1977 (LA) INEZ 1966 (Keys) AGNES 1972 (NY, CT) FERN 1971 (TX) FLOSSY 1956 (NW) GINGER 1971 (NC) CINDY 1963 (TX) FLORENCE 1953 (NW) GERDA 1969 (ME) ETHEL 1960 (MS) 1947 (Keys, DONNA 1960 (MA,NH,ME) SE) 2 EDITH 1971 (LA) DAVID 1979 (SE,NE) DAVID 1979 (GA,SC) FLOSSY 1956 (LA) GLADYS 1968 (NW) DONNA 1960 (CT, RI) 1949 (TX) ALMA 1966 (NW) CAROL 1954 (NC) 1945 (TX) ISBELL 1964 (SW) HAZEL 1954 (MD) 1943 (TX) CLEO 1964 (SE) 1947 (GA, SC) 3 ALLEN 1980 (TX) ELOISE 1975 (NW) DONNA 1960 (NC, NY) FREDERIC 1979 (AL,MS) BETSY 1965 (Keys) GRACIE 1959 (SC) CARMEN 1974 (LA) DONNA 1960 (SW) CONNIE 1955 (NC) CELIA 1970 (TX) EASY 1950 (W-CNTRL) IONE 1955 (NC) BEULAH 1967 (TX) KING 1950 (SE) CAROL 1954 (NY, CT, RI) EDNA 1954 (MA) 1944 (NC, VA, NY, CT, RI) 1938 (NY, CT, RI, MA) 4 CARLA 1961 (TX) DONNA 1960 (Keys) HAZEL 1954 (SC, NC) AUDREY 1957 (LA) 1947 SE) 1932 (TX) 1928 (SE, Lake 1919 (TX) Okeechobee) 1915 (LA) 1926 (SE) 1915 (TX) 1919 (Keys) 1909 (LA) 1900 (TX) 5 CAMILLE 1969 (MS) 1935 (Keys - "Labor Day NONE Storm") As with the assignment of scale numbers, a certa-in amount of subjectivity was inescapable at times in determining which counties received direct or indirect hits during the various hurricane situations. However, certain arbitrary guidelines for these classifications were used as indicated below: Direct Hit - When the innermost core regions, or "eye", moved over a county, it was counted as a direct hit. Using "R" as the radius of maximum winds in a hurri- cane (the distance in miles from the storm's center to the circle of maximum winds around the center), all or parts of counties falling within approximately 2R to the right and R to the left of a storm's landfall point were considered to have received direct hits. (This assumes an observer at sea looking toward shore.) On the average, this direct hit zone extended about 50 miles along the coastline (R9615 miles). Of course, some hurricanes were smaller than this and some, particularly in higher latitudes, were much larger. Cases were judg- ed individually, and many borderline situations had to be resolved. Indirect Hit - These were based primarily on a hurricane' s strength and size and on the configuration of the indi- vidual county coastline. -Here again, much subjectivity was necessary in many cases which were complicated by storm paths and geography. Generally, those areas on either side of the direct hit zone which received hurri- cane force winds and/or tides of 4 to 5 feet or more above normal were considered to be indirect hits. The complete hurricane climatology, 1900-1982, for all coastal counties from Texas to Maine is-included in tabular form as Appendix C. It is comprised of a series of five pages counties listed in approximate geographical order from the lower Texas coast to the upper coast of Maine. 7 The procedures described above comprise the ma in thrust of this paper. Several other graphs and tables were prepared, using the same basic information as follows: 1) Appendix A illustrates the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane scale. 2) Tables 4a and 4b were prepared in the process of developing the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane scale climatology. Comments concerning all tables are included in the following section. DISCUSSION The purpose of this statistical summary is to graphically demonstrate the low hurricane experience level of most U.S. coastal residents. The 175 county graphs in Appendix B are considered to be the primary data presented. Almost all of the data presented in the other Appendixes and Table's are contained within these graphs. However, while it may appear redundant in some instances, the data have been presented in these forms to allow for an easier statistical interpretation on a county, state and national basis. Some of this interpre- tation has been included briefly in the sections under Proced- ures and the forewords of the Appendixes, and to point out some of the more significant facts which can be inferred. Reference Table 1. An important point here is that the central pressure ranges will agree quite well with the wind ranges, but that the surge is strongly dependent on the slope of the con- tinental shelf (shoaling factor). This can change the height of the surge by a factor of two for any given scale number. Reference Table 2. This table was designed as a general illus- tration of population increases in Gulf and Atlantic coastal states since the last direct hit by a major hurricane. It should be emphasized that the population figures refer to coastal sections only for each state and are a summation of individual coastal county population values. Population totals at the time of the last major hurricane in each state since 1900 8 are for different years. No entry for a particular state indicates that there have been no direct hits by major hurri- canes since 1900. Combined population increases since the last major hurricane for each area indicate that over 31 million people along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts have never experienced a direct hit by a major hurricane. This is over 78% of the Gulf and Atlantic coastal residents of the United States. Six states have not had a single direct hit by a major hurricane in this century, while almost 85% of the coastal population of Florida - the most hurri- cane prone state - have never experienced a direct hit by a major hurricane The main point to be made here (and throughout this paper) is that most of the people who go through hurricanes experience either a relativel]y weak hurricane (categories I and 2), or an indirect -hit (fringe conditions) by a major hurricane. Generally less than 25% have actually felt the most intense central core, creating a sense of false security for 75% or more of the "ex- perienced" coastal residents during the next major hurricane si t ua ti on . Considering the growth rate of most coastal counties, as indi- cated in the graphs in Appendix B, it is felt that the figures presented are conservative. In the eight years since 1975, the three major hurricanes to strike the U. S. (Eloise 1975, Frederic 1979, Allen 1980) hit in areas containing relatively few people. Reference Table 3. As indicated in Table 1, the terms "Scale Number" and "Category" are used interchangeably. In addition to D0-NNA 1960, Table 3 also shows several other hurricanes which affected different areas with different scale numbers (e.g., HAZEL 1954, CAROL 1954), or the same scale number (e.g., BETSY 1965, 1919). It will be noted that only two category 5 hurricanes have affected the U. S. coastline this century - the "Labor Day Storm" of 1935 in the Florida Keys, and Hurricane Camille of 1969 on the Mississippi/Louisiana coast. Of the 13 hurricanes listed in category 4, only one (HAZEL 1954) affected the Atlantic coast north of Florida. (In 1919, the same category 4 hurricane affected the Florida Keys and Texas.) Reference Table 4a. Many hurricanes affect more than opie state (reference Table 3). In addition, Florida and Texas have been sub-divided into sections because of their extensive coastlines. In Florida, the north-south dividing line is roughly from Cape Canaveral to Tarpon Springs. In Texas, south is roughly from 9 Brownsville to Corpus Christi, central is from north of Corpus Christi to Matagorda Bay, and north is from north of Matagorda Bay to the Louisiana border. As a result, entries in Table 4a may be made more than once for the same hurricane. In other words, Florida and Texas sectional totals may not equal state totals, and state totals cannot be summed to get regional or national totals. However, the first line in the table is an actual count of all hurricanes which have affected the United States, where only the highest category of any state affected has been tabulated. This total indicates that 136 hurricanes have affected the U. S. coast during the period 1900-1982. Of this total, 55 or about 40% were major hurricanes. While it has been stated that a direct hit by a major hurricane in any one locality is a rare event, the sobering statistics of the top line in Table 4a illustrate that on the average so far this century: 1) two major hurricanes (capable of causing damage in the billions of dollars and killing hundreds) cross the U. S. coast somewhere every.three years; 2) a category 4 hurricane crosses the U. S. coastline somewhere nearly once every six years. This table gives a quick reference to the hurricane climatology of individual states. The table reveals that 33% of all hurri- canes hit Florida. A few other noteworthy statistics are that Florida and Texas combined have been hit by nearly 75% of cate- gory 4 or higher. hurricanes, and that approximately one out of every two hurricanes is a major one along the middle Gulf coast, southern Florida, and New York and southern New England. Reference Table 4b. This table is a chronological list of all 136 hurricanes including categories by states. Also included in the table is a list of estimated central pressures at the time'of landfall for the highest U. S. category. Pressure values are not available for several earlier years and a few hurricanes in recent years which moved inland in sparsely settled areas. By comparing the central pressure of a given hurricane to the range of pressures for each scale number, it is possible to see how close that hurricane came to falling into a higher or lower category. In addition, the effect of extreme forward speed (indicated by an asterisk beside a number), as for most hurricanes north of Cape Hatteras, must be considered. Reference Ta~bie 5. This table gives the coastal county population in-~exact numbers (19-80) rather than ha~ving to extract the figure from the graphs in Appendix B. Reference Appendix A. This scale has been referred to as the Simpson Disaster Potential Scale in some earlier publications. I10 Table 4a. Number of Hurricanes (Direct Hits) Affecting U. S. and Individual States 1900 - 1982 according to Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale. AREA CATEGORY NUMBER ALL MAJOR 1 2 3 4 5 HURRICANES (>3) U.S. (Texas to Maine) 48 33 40 13 2 136 55 Texas 9 9 8 6 0 32 14 (North) 4 3 2 4 0 13 6 (Central) 2 2 1 1 0 6 2 (South) 3 4 5 1 0 13 6 Louisiana 5 5 7 3 1 21 11 Mississippi 1 1 4 0 1 7 5 Alabama 4 1 4 0 0 9 4 Florida 16 14 15 5 1 51 21 (Northwest) 9 6 5 0 0 20 5 (Northeast) 1 7 0 0 0 8 0 (Southwest) 5 3 5 2 1 16 8 (Southeast) 4 10 7 3 0 24 10 Georgia 1 4 0 0 0 5 0 South Carolina 5 4 2 1* 0 12 3 North Carolina 9 3 6 1* 0 19 7 Virginia I I 1* 0 0 3 1* Maryland 0 1* 0 0 0 1* 0 Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Jersey 1* 0 0 0 0 1* 0 New York 3 0 4* 0 0 7 4* Connecticut 2 1* 3* 0 0 6 3* Rhode Island 0 1* 3* 0 0 4* 3* Massachusetts 2 1* 2* 0 0 5 2* New Hampshire 1* 0 0 0 0 1* 0 Maine 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 *Indicates all hurricanes in this category were moving greater than 30 mph. Note: State totals will not equal U. S. totals and Texas and Florida sectional totals will not equal state totals. 11 Table 4b. - Chronological List of All Hurricanes Which Affected the U. S. 1900 - 1982 Including Category by States. Year Month States Affected and Highest Category Minimum Sea Category by States U. S. Level Pressure (Mb.) 1900 Sep TX, 4N 4 931 1901 Jul NC, 1 1 - 1901 Aug LA, MS 2 2 972 1903 Sep FL, 2SE, 1NW 2 976 1903 Sep NJ, NY, CT, 1 1 990 1904 Sep SC, 1 1I - 1906 Jun FL, ISE 1 - 1906 Sep SC, NC, 3 3 947 1906 Sep MS, AL, 3 3 958 1906 Oct FL, 2SE 2 967 1908 Jul NC, 1 1 - 1909 Jul TX, 3N 3 958 1909 Aug TX, 2S 2 - 1909 Sep LA, 4 4 931 1909 Oct FL, 3SE (Keys) 3 957 1910 Sep TX, 2S 2 965 1910 Oct FL, 3SW 3 955 1911 Aug FL, 1NW; AL, I I - 1911 Aug GA, SC, 2 2 - 1912 Sep AL, 1 1 1912 Oct TX, IS 1 1913 Jun TX, IS 1 1913 Sep NC, 1 1 - 1915 Aug TX, 4N 4 945 1915 Sep FL, 1NW 1 988 1915 Sep LA, 4 4 931 1916 Jul MS, AL, 3 3 948 1916 Jul MA, 1 1I - 1916 Jul SC, 1 1 980 1916 Aug TX, 3S 3 948 1916 Oct AL, 2; FL, 2NW 2 972 1916 Nov FL, 1SW (Keys) I - 1917 Sep FL, 3NW 3 958 1918 Aug LA, 3 3 955 1919 Sep FL, 4SW (Keys); TX, 4S 4 927 1920 Sep LA, 2 2 975 1920 Sep NC, 1 1 - 1921 Jun TX, 2C 2 979 1921 Oct FL, 3SW, 2NE 3 952 12 Table 4b. (Cont'd.) Year Month States Affected and Highest Category Minimum Sea Category by States U. S. Level Pressure (Mb.) 1923 Oct LA, 1 1 985 1924 Sep FL, 1NW 1 985 1924 Oct FL, 1SW 1 980 1925 Nov FL, 1SW 1 1926 Jul FL, 2NE 2 967 1926 Aug LA, 3 3 955 1926 Sep FL, 4SE, 3SW, 3NW 4 935 AL, 3 1928 Aug FL, 2SE 2 - 1928 Sep FL, 4SE, 2NE 4 929 GA, SC, 1 1929 Jun TX, 1C 1 982 1929 Sep FL, 3SE, 2NW 3 948 1932 Aug TX, 4N 4 941 1932 Sep AL, 1 1 979 1933 Jul/ Aug FL, 1SE; TX, 2S 2 975 1933 Aug NC, VA, 2 2 971 1933 Sep TX, 3S 3 949 1933 Sep FL, 3SE 3 948 1933 Sep NC, 3 3 957 1934 Jun LA, 3 3 962 1934 Jul TX, 2S 2 975 1935 Sep FL, 5SW (Keys), 2NW 5 892 1935 Nov FL, 2SE 2 973 1936 Jun TX, IS 1 987 1936 Jul FL, 3NW 3 964 1936 Sep NC, 2 2 - 1938 Aug LA, 1 1 985 1938 Sep NY, CT, RI, MA, 3* 3* 946 1939 Aug FL, ISE, 1NW 1 985 1940 Aug TX, 2N, LA, 2 2 972 1940 Aug GA, SC, 2 2 970 1941 Sep TX, 3N 3 958 1941 Oct FL, 2SE, 2SW, 2NW 2 975 1942 Aug TX, 1N 1 992 1942 Aug TX, 3C 3 950 1943 Jul TX, 2N 2 969 1944 Aug NC, 1 1 990 1944 Sep NC, VA, NY, CT, RI, 3* MA, 2* 3* 947 1944 Oct FL, 3SW, 2NE 3 962 13 Table 4b. (Cont'd.) Year Month States Affected and Highest Category Minimum Sea Category by States U. S. Level Pressure (Mb.) 1945 Jun FL, 1NW 1 985 1945 Aug TX, 2C 2 967 1945 Sep FL, 3SE 3 951 1946 Oct FL, lSW 1 980 1947 Aug TX, IN 1 992 1947 Sep FL, 4SE, 2SW; MS, LA, 3 4 940 1947 Oct FL, ISE; GA, SC, 2 2 974 1948 Sep LA, 1 1 987 1948 Sep FL, 3SW, 2SE 3 963 1948 Oct FL, 2SE 2 975 1949 Aug NC, 1 1 980 1949 Aug FL, 3SE 3 954 1949 Oct TX, 2N 2 972 1950 Aug AL, 1 1 980 1950 Sep FL, 3NW 3 958 1950 Oct FL, 3SE 3 955 1952 Aug SC, 1 1 985 1953 Aug NC, 1 1 987 1953 Sep ME, 1* 1* - 1953 Sep FL, 1NW 1 985 1954 Aug NC, 2; NY, CT, RI, 3* 3* 960 1954 Sep MA, 3*; ME, 1* 3* 954 1954 Oct SC, NC, 4*; MD, 2* 4* 938 1955 Aug NC, 3; VA, 1 3 962 1955 Aug NC, 1 1 987 1955 Sep NC, 3 3 960 1956 Sep LA, 2; FL, 1NW 2 975 1957 Jun TX, 4N; LA, 4 4 945 1959 Jul TX, IN 1 984 1959 Jul SC, 1 1 993 1959 Sep SC, 3 3 950 1960 Sep MS, 1 1 981 1960 Sep FL, 4SW (Keys), 2NE; NC, 4 930 NY, 3*; CT, RI, 2*; MA, NH, ME, 1* 1961 Sep TX, 4C 4 931 1963 Sep TX, IN 1 996 1964 Aug FL, 2SE 2 968 1964 Sep FL, 2NE 2 966 1964 Oct LA, 3 3 950 14 Table 4b. (Cont'd.) Year Month States Affected and Highest Category Minimum Sea Category by States U. S. Level Pressure (Mb.) 1964 Oct FL, 2SW, 2SE 2 974 1965 Sep FL, 3SE; LA, 3 3 948 1966 Jun FL, 2NW 2 982 1966 Oct FL, lSW, (Keys) 1 983 1967 Sep TX, 3S 3 950 1968 Oct FL, 2NW, INE 2 977 1969 Aug LA, MS, 5 5 909 1969 Sep ME, 1 1 980 1970 Aug TX, 3S 3 945 1971 Sep LA, 2 2 978 1971 Sep TX, 1C 1 979 1971 Sep NC, 1 1 993 1972 Jun FL, 1NW; NY, CT, 1 980 1974 Sep LA, 3 3 952 1975 Sep FL, 3NW 3 955 1976 Aug NY, 1 1 980 1977 Sep LA, 1 1 995 1979 Jul LA, 1 986 1979 Sep FL, 2SE, 2NE; GA, 2; SC, 2 2 970 1979 Sep AL, MS, 3 3 946 1980 Aug TX, 3S 3 945 * No hurricanes struck the U.S. coastline in 1981 or 1982. 15 Reference Appendix B. A note of caution is needed to avoid misinterpretation of these graphs. Because of the different population ranges from graph to graph, the total increase in a county with a large population but relatively slow growth rate may be larger than a more sparsely populated county with a rapid growth rate. One other point - if the core (direct hit) of a major hurricane affected only a sparsely populated section of a heavily populated county (e.g., Dade County, Florida - BETSY 1965), it was considered to be an indirect hit in these graphs, but that portion directly affected was included in Table 2. While these graphs give a complete hurricane climatology on a county-by-county basis, it would be quite difficult to determine how the individual hurricanes affected larger areas if one had to compare county graphs. Appendix C has been prepared to read- ily supply this information. Reference Appendix C. This appendix has been designed so that each page is a geographical area likely to be affected solely by a given hurricane. However, pages can be combined into a single, continuous display for the entire Gulf and Atlantic coasts. With the data from the individual graphs of Appendix B combined in this form, many facts can be derived easily on a county, state, or regional basis. For example, an idea of the size of a hurri- cane can be obtained by the number of counties affected (although tracks relative to geographical configurations can be misleading in a few instances). Also, one can readily count how many direct or indirect hits of any category have occurred, or how long it has been between any hurricanes, or those of a particular category. 16 SUMMARY Populations continue to increase along most sections of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the United States. This trend, along with the relatively low frequency of hurricanes in recent years and low hurricane experience levels of some 31 million coastal resi- dents, is an item of major concern at the National Hurri- * ~~cane Center. It is hoped that this report will help to some degree in substituting education for hurricane experience. When a hurricane crosses the coast, many persons feel its effects; however, only a small percentage of the coastal residents experi- ence a direct hit by its intense inner core, the major death and damage producer of the hurricane. Most residents experience in- direct hits, or fringe effects, during hurricane situations (or direct hits, by relatively weak hurricanes - categories I and 2) and can be lulled into a false sense of security by feeling that they have experienced the worst part. In view of this, the disaster potential of subsequent hurricane situations might be inaccurately assessed by many coastal residents. While the increase in coastal populations is alarming, it is felt that the figures presented in this report are conservative. Since 1980, unofficial estimates indicate that most Gulf and Atlantic coastal populations have continued to increase. In addition, these population statistics are for permanent residents and do not take into account summer tourism which may increase some county population totals tenfold during weekends or holidays. Another major concern, not discussed in this report, is that many thousands of the coastal county residents live in mobile homes which are extremely vulnerable to hurricanes of any category. Acknowledgements. Dr. Neil Frank, Director, NHC, conceived the idea of combining population graphs and hurricane climatology and suggested the preparation of this report. Ms. Joan David updated all of the drafting material previously done by Ms. Mary Watson, and Ms. Gayle Shickel did the revised typing. 1 7 REFERENCES Cry, G.W., 1965: "Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic", Technical Paper, No. 55, U. S. Weather Bureau, Washington D.C., 148 pp. Dunn, G.E., and B.I. Miller, 1964: "Atlantic Hurricanes", Revised Edition, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 377 pp. Kraft, R.H.: "Great Hurricanes, 1955-1965", Mariners Weather Log, Vol. 19, No. 6, Nov. 1966, pp. 200-202. Ludlum, D.M., 1963: "Early American Hurricanes 1492-1870", American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts, 198 pp. Simpson, R.H., and M.B. Lawrence, 1971: "Atlantic Hurricane Frequencies Along the U. S. Coastline", NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS SR-58, U. S. Department of Commerce, National Weather Service, Southern Region Headquarters, Fort Worth, Texas, 14 pp. Sugg, A.L., LoG. Pardue, and R.L. Carrodus, 1971: "Memorable Hurricanes of the United States Since 1873", NOAA Technical Memorandum'NWS SR-56, U. S. Department of Commerce, National Weather Service, Southern Region Headquarter, Fort Worth, Texas, 52 pp. Tannehill, IoR., 1956: "Hurricanes", 9th Edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 308 pp. U. S. Department of Commerce, 1970: "Census '80", Bureau of the Census Pamphlets (18 States - Population Statistics for Earlier Years), Washington, D.C. U. S. Department of Commerce, 1971: "1970 Census of Population, Number of Inhabitants - Texas, etc...", Final Report PC(1)-A45 Texas, etc... (18 States), U. S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. U. S. Department of Commerce, 1980: "Census of Population and Housing", Advance Reports (18 States), U. S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 18 APPENDIX A THE SAFFIR/SIMPSON3 HURRICANE SCALE The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale is used by the National Weather Service to give public safety officials a continuing assessment of the potential for wind and storm-surge damage from a hurricane in progress. Scale numbers are made available to public-safety officials when a hurricane is within 72 hours of landfall. Scale numbers range from I to 5. Scale No. I begins with hurri- canes in which the maximum sustained winds are at least 74 miles per hour, or will produce a storm surge 4 to 5 feet above normal water level, while Scale No. 5 applies to those in which the max- imum sustained winds are more than 155 miles per hour, or has the potential of producing a storm surge more than 18 feet above normal. Dr. Neil Frank, present NHC Director, has adapted atmospheric pressure ranges to the Saffir/Simpson Scale. These pressure ranges, along with a numerical break-down of wind and storm surge ranges, are listed in Table 1. The Weather Service emphasizes that the scale numbers are not forecasts, but are based on observed conditions at a given time in a hurricane's lifespan. They represent an estimate of what the storm would do to a coastal area if it were to strike with- out change in size or strength. Scale assessments are revised regularly as new observations are made, and public-safety organiza- tions are kept informed of new estimates of the hurricane's disaster potential. The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale indicates probable property damage and evacuation recommendations as listed below: Scale No. I - Winds of 74 to 95 miles per hour. Damage primarily to shrubbery, trees, foliage and unanchored mobile homes. No real damage to other structures. Some damage to poorly construc- ted signs. And/or: storm surge 4 to 5 feet above normal. Low- lying coastal roads inundated, minor pier damage, some small craft in exposed anchorage torn from moorings. 3Developed by Herbert Saffir, Dade County, Florida, Consulting Engineer, and Dr. Robert H. Simpson, former National Hurricane Center Director. 19 Scale No. 2 - Winds of 96 to 110 miles per hour. Considerable damage to shrubbery and tree foliage, some trees blown down. Major damage to exposed mobile homes. Extensive damage to poorly constructed signs. Some damage to roofing materials of buildings; some window and door damage. No major damage to buildings. And/ or: storm surge 6 to 8 feet above normal. Coastal roads and low- lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 2 to 4 hours before arrival of hurricane center. Considerable damage to piers. Ma- rinas flooded. Small craft in unprotected anchorages torn from moorings. Evacuation of some shoreline residences and low-lying island areas required. Scale No. 3 - Winds of III to 130 miles per hour. Foliage torn from trees, large trees blown down. Practically all poorly con- structed signs blown down. Some damage to roofing materials of buildings; some window and door damage. Some structural damage to small buildings. Mobile homes destroyed. And/or: storm surge 9 to 12 feet above normal. Serious flooding at coast and many smaller structures near coast destroyed; larger structures near coast damaged by battering waves and floating debris. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives. Flat terrain 5 feet or less above sea level flooded inland 8 miles or more. Evacuation of low-lying residences within several blocks of shoreline possibly required. Scale No. 4 - Winds of 131 to 155 mil~es per hour. Shrubs and trees blown down, all signs down. Extensive damage to roofing materials, windows and doors. Complete failure of roof on many small residences. Complete destruction of mobile homes. And/or: storm surge 13 to 18 feet above normal. Flat terrain 10 feet or less above sea level flooded inland as far as 6 miles. Major damage to lower floors of structures near shore due to flooding and battering by waves and floating debris. Low-lying es~cape routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives. Major erosion of beaches. Massive evacuation of all residences within 500 yards of shore possibly required, and of single-story residences on low ground within 2 miles of shore. Scale No. 5 - Winds greater than 155 miles per hour. Shrubs and trees blown down, considerable damage to roofs of buildings; all signs down. Very severe and extensive damage to windows and doors. Complete failure of roofs on many residences and industri- al buildings. Extensive shattering of glass in windows and doors. Some complete building failures. Small buildings overturned or blown away. Complete destruction of mobile homes. And/or: storm surge greater than 18 feet above normal. Major damage to lower floors of all structures less than 15 feet above sea level within 500 yards of shore. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives. Massive evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5 to 10 miles of shore possibly required. 2 0 APPENDIX B INDIVIDUAL COASTAL COUNTY HURRICANE CLIMATOLOGY/POPULATION GRAPHS, TEXAS TO MAINE The set of population graphs in this appendix illustrates popu- lation trends along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the United States during the period 1900-1980. Indications are that this increasing trend in coastal populations has continued into 1983 in most areas; however, no estimates are included here. Assum- ing this to be the case, hurricane experience levels and the disaster potential for many areas are even more critical than indicated in the following county climatology/population graphs. Hurricane climatology along the bottom of each graph is indicated by arrows and Saffir/Simpson Scale numbers for the period 1900-1982. Each hurricane is represented by either a solid or a dashed arrow along with the appropriate scale number and is enter- ed at the year of occurrence. Solid arrows indicate direct hits, and dashed arrows denote indirect hits. For direct hits of cate- gory 3 hurricanes or higher, a vertical dashed line has been in- serted between the arrowhead and-the population curve. This gives a convenient, quick reference to the number and frequency of direct hits in each county by major hurricanes (scale numbers 3, 4 and 5) since 1900. The key to symbols used in connection with hurricane climatology along the bottom of each graph, along with examples, is shown belI ow. Key for Symbols used in Hurricane Climatology (NOTE: Dual symbols were needed when using scale numbers in tabular form, without arrows, such as in Appendix C.) - Direct Hit ()or I- Indirect Hit or 0- Exiting or Inland * ~~~- Forward Speed 30 mph or Greater (In effect, may increase/decrease Saffir/Simpson scale number by as much as one on strong/weak side, respectively.) 21 Examples (Symbols used in Hurricane Climatology/Population Graphs) - -Direct Hit by a Category 2 Hurricane Nl - Indirect Hit (or fringe hit) by a Category 2 Hurricane - ietHtb ninadoextn(mvgfrmld towater) Category 3 Hurricane 0 - Di ec Hit by Hurricane Carol, Category 3, moving 30mph or greater or - Two direct or indirect hits in the same year, with the or ~Category 3 hurricane occurring first. (If a direct 0J W ~and indirect hit both occurred in the same year, they were offset slightly and plotted adjacent to one another. ) - Direct Hit by a Category 4 Hurricane in the eastern I ~p art of Monroe County, Florida. (Note: W indicates the western part of Monroe County. No letter desig- ~j. nation indicates the entire county was affected. wJ This notation is used only in Monroe County - the Florida Keys - because of geographical configurations and hurricane frequencies.) NOTE: Names of hurricanes are entered beside arrows 1950 - present. 2 2 INDEX OF INDIVIDUAL COASTAL COUNTY GRAPHS (NOTE: The 175 graphs in this appendix are arranged in approximate geographical order from the lower Texas coast to the upper coast of Maine. Major cities or well-known locations are indicated for some counties.) 1. TEXAS (17) Cameron (Brownsville), Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces (Corpus Christi), San Patricio, Aransas, Refugio, Calhoun (Port O'Connor), Jackson, Matagorda, Brazoria, Galveston (Galveston), Harris (Houston), Chambers, Jefferson (Port Arthur, Beaumont), Orange. 2. LOUISIANA (11) Cameron, Vermilion, Iberia, St. Mary (Morgan City), Terrebonne, Lafourche, Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, Orleans (New Orleans), St. Tammany. 3. MISSISSIPPI (3) Hancock (Bay St. Louis), Harrison (Biloxi), Jackson (Pascagoula). 4. ALABAMA (2) Mobile (Mobile), Baldwin. 5. FLORIDA (38) Escambia (Pensacola), Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay (Panama City), Gulf, Franklin (Apalachicola), Wakulla, Jefferson, Taylor, Dixie, Levy (Cedar Key), Citrus (Homosassa), Hernando, Pasco (New Port Richey), Pinellas (St. Petersburg), Hillsborough (Tampa), Manatee (Bradenton), Sarasota (Sarasota), Charlotte (Punta Gorda), Lee (Fort Myers), Collier (Naples), Monroe (Key West), Dade (Miami), Broward (Fort Lauderdale), Palm Beach (West Palm Beach), Hendry (Clewiston), Glades (Moore Haven), Okeechobee, Martin (Stuart), St. Lucie (Fort Pierce), Indian River (Vero Beach), Brevard (Cape Canaveral), Volusia (Daytona Beach), Flagler, St. Johns (St. Augustine), Duval (Jacksonville), Nassau (Fernandina Beach). 6. GEORGIA (6) Camden, Glynn (Brunswick), McIntosh, Liberty, Bryan, Chatham (Savannah). 23 7. SOUTH CAROLINA (5) Beaufort (Hilton Head),Colleton, Charleston (Charleston), Georgetown (Georgetown), Horry (Myrtle Beach). 8. NORTH CAROLINA (17) Brunswick, New Hanover (Wilmington), Pender, Onslow, Carteret (Morehead City), Pamlico, Beaufort, Hyde, Dare (Cape Hatteras), Tyrrell, Washington, Bertie, Chowan, Perquimans, Pasquotank (Elizabeth City), Camden, Currituck. 9. VIRGINIA (15) (NOTE: Several independent cities are listed instead of counties. See notes in Virginia table, Appendix C.) Virginia Beach, Chesapeake (Chesapeake, Norfolk and Ports- mouth Cities), Suffolk City, Isle of Wight, Surry James City (Williamsburg City), York (Hampton City, Newport News City) Gloucester, Mathews, Middlesex, Lancaster, Northum- berland, Westmoreland, Northampton, Accomack. 10. MARYLAND (14) Worcester (Ocean City), Somerset, St. Marys, Calvert, Anne Arundel (Annapolis), Baltimore (includes Baltimore City), Harford, Cecil, Kent, Queen Annes, Talbot, Caroline, Dorchester, Wicomico. 11. DELAWARE (3) Sussex (Rehoboth Beach), Kent, New Castle (Wilmington). 12. NEW JERSEY (10) Salem, Cumberland, Cape May (Ocean City), Atlantic (Atlantic City), Burlington, Ocean, Monmouth (Asbury Park), Middlesex (Perth Amboy), Hudson (Jersey City), Bergen. 13. NEW YORK (8) Richmond (Staten Island), New York (Manhattan), Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, Nassau (Jones Beach), Suffolk (West- hampton), Bronx (Bronx), Westchester. 24 14. CONNECTICUT (4) New London (New London), Middlesex, New Haven, Fairfield (Bridgeport). 15. RHODE ISLAND (5) Newport (Newport), Bristol (Bristol), Providence (Providence), Kent, Washington (Narragansett Point). 16. MASSACHUSETTS (8) Bristol (New Bedford), Dukes (Martha's Vineyard), Nantucket (Nantucket), Barnstable (Cape Cod), Plymouth (Plymouth), Norfolk, Suffolk (Boston), Essex (Gloucester). 17. NEW HAMPSHIRE (1) Rockingham (Portsmouth). 18. MAINE (8) York, Cumberland (Portland), Sagadahoc, Lincoln, Knox, Waldo, Hancock, Washington (Eastport). 25 CAMERON COUNTY, TX 800 too 600 0 E 500 400 P 3 300 L 0 200 o 6~~~WIIAY OUT, T X r so so Z 40 30- L 60 20 to a 40 26 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~C KENEDY COUNTY, TX 7 6 GM 3 a. 4 n T rr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l z - I o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s * 0 I- I ao 30 20 0a- 2 II KLEIERG CO(*JTY, TX 80 70 60 o so 40 ~ 0 3O 20 go I oi 0 T ~~~~~~~~~~~~I IliF 0 jO 0I 3' 27 NUECES COUNTY, TX g00 700 600 S 4 500 aw~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 200 to 0 -I so 400 30 200 100 0t0 s dli~~~Obal ZI.Q 2 8 W~~~pq mwPr � r- SANQ TR~ICIO c~tI(IY, lx e0- To 00 2240 0 20 oo 012, 0~ - 0 28 ARANSAS COUNTY, TX so 70 so 50 40 z 30 4 a- 20 0 -~ uii rw r nil REFUGIO COUNTY, TX so 70 60 Z450 0 20 f 40 ~ 0 a- t 20~ ~ ~~2 CALHOUN COUNTY, TX so 70 60 , 50 Z 40 U) 20 10 0 JACKSOSN COUNdTY, TX so Z 4 30 20 20 10 20 o~~~~~ a- 04 4l 0) 70~~~~3 MATAGORDA COUNTY, TX so so o 50 z 40 20 -I 10 700 I I~~~~~~I 20 0 10 I II I~~~~~~~~~~ II I I~ ~ ~~~~~~I I 0 - ~~ ~~~~II an 300 0 0L BRAZORIA COUNTTY, TX 800 700 600 U) c 500 0 400 0 1=~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 300 200 100 0 I 1*1 o oI o ~ ~ 6 IIL 1 0- c 0) 10 I 0) 0) II i" ri. i HlI I -I1 % 31 GALVESTON COUNTY, TX 800 600 z 400 0 400 L 0 200 3200 1600 0 3200 200 0 ' -J~~~~~~~- 1~~~~~~~20 CHAMBERS COUNTY, TX so 70 60 so o 50 to z 40 _o 30 o 20 10 _ 800 700 goo 600 o 200 400 I- 7D300 0 200 100 o 00 cm to l o It'll 33 so ORANGE ~~~COUNTY, T.~ 60 O 5 60 50/ � 40 o 40 o I I I ;~~~~~~ 50 0 A '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I o i.. T=.._-~ IO~~~~I -' Ii i END OF TEXAS COUNT~~~~~~~~~~IE 34~~~~~~~~~~~ CAMERON PARISH, LA. so 70 60 U) o 50 50 4E 340 30 a. 20 10 o ~ c tO h o 0jOt 0o i VERMILIONI PARISH, LA. so so Z40 70 60 10 o 50 0 z 40 00 00 o o 10 A 0 35 SERIA PARISH, LA. 60 70 60 Q o 50 z 40 30 20 10 o o ol o o o ol~ 0 01 * O IO - - -I -~~i -in- 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~0~ ST. MARY PARISH, LA. 70 60 50 o z 40 -I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a=)30 20 0I 00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~01 ou - n n 36 36 TERREBONNE FPRISH, LA 800 700 600 3 500 200 C 0 0~~~~~~~~~~ 400 40 ~ 300 a. 0 a 200 10 - -a 7 AF'OURCHE PARISH, LA. 80 to 60 ~ 5Q Z 40 -J o i I~~ ~ ~ I 20 I I I, I, I I I I n I I I I7 JEFFERSON PARISH, LA. 800 Soo 600 3 500 400 0 -J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C so 7 300 60 50 200 100 0 CL~~~~j oO 0on Q i O8OZI a, ~ ~ ~ ~ a 11= o PLAQUEINESPARISH,LbA. so 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 wv q - w - 0) 0 38 ST. BERNARD PARISH, LA. so To 60 TI 0 50 0 Z ~~/j z 40 30 L 230 4 a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o a. 20 Bo 50 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~00 a~~~~~~. ORLEANS P~ARISH, LA. 800 700 600 400 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ c v 5 300 9 40 2 00I 11~~ ~~ I ioo Of I CI~~~~~l 39 ST TAMMANY FARISH, LA' 800 700 600 S oo c 500 400 ~ 300 C- a- 200 100 fit- END OF LOUISIANA PARISHES. 40 HARRISON COUNTY, MS 800 700 600 c 500 400 300 200 200 700 5 0 -~,-II -- - I1w Ir~~~~~~~~~I N a4 -n - a a NANCOCI( COUNTY, MS Z4 70 oso ~ 0 2 40 I 0 230 10 0 i t - 41 JACIKON COUNTY, MS 700 600 400 D 300 200 100 am i i " 1 !A END OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTIES 42 MOBILE COUNTY, AL Boo 700 600 c 500 0 300 400 300 0 30. 200 100 ~~~~~I dn fm g o , 0'~~~n BAALWIMN COUNTY, AL 60 70 ~~~~A so 60 0 z 40 0 to~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o ~~~~~~~~~~~~430 -J ~ ~ - 0.n n 101 4~~~4 ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FL 800- 700 600 400 3 500 200 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a 400 0 -J 300 0 a- 200 I 01 O 00 I I4 80 10 o o o 91 0 -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~E 4~~~~~4 OKALOOSA COUNTY, FL Boo 700 600 500 a a 400 0 00 WALTON COUNTY, FL so to so 0 50 z 40 30 20 10 o o lb io IL o 0 oI a o - u ,,N it) - cm -, -, II- II -, d o, o, o4 m N n~~- -- U WATN ONTF BAY COUNTY, FL 800 700 600 U, c 500 a 400 C- -I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 300 n~~~~~~n0 0 200 100 80 Ino 5 o s ii i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i z ~~~~~~40 00 0o 0~ o 00 o 20, 0 io~~~~~gl l r ~~~~~~46 FRANKLIN COUNTY, FL 70 60 'ji 50 0 10 z 40 0 -J 630 50 40 0 20 o o I 0 WAKULLA COUNTY, FL 0 60 5: 50 0 0 z 40 0 ~ 30 00 0.. too o 0" 0 0 47 JEFFERSON COUNTY, FL so 70 60 50 z 40 0 a. 20- 0 CD C D 0 0 0 u,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, TAYLOR COUNTY, FL 80 z 40 30 60 a. 20 10 0 14 0 I ~~~fYUI SO~TY H res~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e 8 50~~~~~4 DIXIE COUNTY, FL so so 70 640 3i0 C O 50 a. 0 z 40 20 10 730 00 a.. 20 I0 4 9 N LEVY COUNTY, FL 30 70 60 O: 50 (0 0 z 40 0 ~ 30 20 (0 0 0 0 To0 1 0 ~ ~ -n N O IN 49 CITRUS COUNTY, FL so-- 70 60 (0 P 50 50 z 40 0 d~~~~~~ a~~~~~~ - 0 10 so 70 125 HE;RNANDO COMTY, FL TO 60 50 C z 40 30 0 o~~~~~ 20 I0 0n - " 50 PASCO COUNTY, FL B00 700 600 500 400 300 a. 400 100 0 I-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l PINELLAS CMINTY. FL 300 Soo 200 400 00 300 a. 200 too 600 700~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e E 500~ ~ ~~5 HILLSBOROLJGH COUNTY, FL Boo 700 - 600 c500 z 00 4 00- cl 1 00 0 7100 Soo e00- z 00 600 2 00 0 0~~~~~~~5 SARASOYTA COUNTY, FL Boo 700 600 500 z400 300 a. 0 a. 200 100 0 4 so 0 0 so - 50 6 0 EL 20 10 z 404 4 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 - N ~~~~~~111 ol 53 LEE COUNTY, FL goo 700 Soo 600 to 400 3 00 a 200 200 I0- o o �o iB 0 0 m0 c Q f"a COLLIER COUNTY, FLj 70 so 50 40/ 30 O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-wO o 20 / W, 10~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~T- IIr 5 4I r 0 54 MONROE COUNTY, FL so 70 LETTER PRECEDING IMTENSITY MUMUIR UNATES PRIMAILY WESTENW 14AL (W OR EASTERN MAF IEI OF COUNTY FFECTED. 60 50 0 20- O ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I 10 KO 1200 II I 1000 II~~~~~1 jI 0� 01'Ij~ ~I i a Goo DADE COUNJTY, FL 1600 1200 ~~~~~~~~~~CY, Z ~~t n Z O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 a U,4-0 o~~~~~~~~~~~~ I o 1 s CdEn-Cd C IEn i q - V d qsa 55 BROWARD COUNTY, FL' 1600 1400 1200 1000 6 00 0 i o I~~~~~~~~~ 4 600 0 400 200/ 100~~~~~~~~~~ 0 U. o,: 1 i o o t~nII jl , I I~ ris iii- - PALM4 BEACH COUNTY, FL 600 700 600 c 500/ 0 40 O~~~~~ 0 300 0 200 100 Ii 10 0, 0,o, rr 6 rr n ~~~~~g~~ B cu~ HENDRY COUNTY, FL so 70 60 30 -a 20 z 40 10 0 El GLADES COUNSTY, FL 0p 5 Z 4 0 3 I0 0 IICL II~! 3 jj~, E'I r w~~~111r I" *I - -tX Iii"- 5 GLDE COUTY F Lj 5 /~~~5 OKEECWMOEE COUNTY, FL 70 60 50 Z 40 20 10 0~~3 50 20 10 0~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL so i 70 so 0 / -J4 .30 0 CL 20 0 I o o 0 tQC iii ii it INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FL so 70 60 so -c z 40 30 4 20 10 20 0 o o 1II o 1 IS I iS: o p1 iIi- I 4*1' ' - - Ine N 59 BREVARD COUNTY. FL B80 700 600 z 400- 300 a.. 0 ILI 400 0 -J 7 300 0.0 0 300 200 100 oo - wI io' el I~aI II) .i1 8 o+ I- B'u e vLUblA COUNTY, FL 800 700 600 0 c 500 0 090 0 ~ 300 a- 0 200 10 * o 0 oT 0 10 0 0 0- m1 - P - -J 1 60 FLAGLER COUNTY, FL so 70 60 so Z 40 ~ 30 20 10 40 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CD ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL so 70 60 50 Z 40 20 40 o o 0 go l a~~~~~T JON COUNTY, n FL 20 60 0 6 DIVAL COuNY, FL 700 700 400 2 500 0 C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C 400 so -J 5 300 a- 0 a. 200 100 0 o 2 e~~~~ ao 70 io CA~~~' ~ c 40 n Q n Di a 0 ,o , a r o p~ 8r 20~ ~ ~~6 CAMDEN COUNTY, GA so 70 60 U, o 5 50 00 4i Z 4 30 0 20 0o 00 0 e $LYNN COUNTY, GA so 70 60 30 o 0 zu 40 0 4 0~~~~ 20 10 o o o o o - u to o n ca h 63 Me INTOSH COUNTY, GA S 70 60N -ci 50 0 30 0 - t- z 0. 20 0=~~~~~6 o 0 0 tO 0 0 0' o N IIWc c rr a, IaQ a uSeRTv COUNTY, GeA 70 60 u, 0 5 -C z 4 0 F 00 10 -~ 0 0 10 0 10) 0 0 64 BRYAN COUNTY, GA TO so 70 60 5 50 z 40 0 a. 10 20 or 0 Jo 0 0r o cm w CD e CHATHAM COUNTY, .A 800 700 600 So c 500 400 F 4 -J ~ 300 a. 0 a- 200 100 0 Ipo ,~~~~~~~~~o 0 oJ II)II N O~~~~mV 065 0) 0 65 BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC so 70 60 / o 50 Z 40 /1 a. 20 40 Io I COLLETON COUNTY, SC so 10 T0- "o (0 oo To .J . 70 0 1 o o z 40 2 e 66 CHARLESTON COUNTY, Sc Boo 700 Soo 600 U, c 500 0 400 -J a 300 a- 0 0. 200 100- 044 'I (~~~~ II~ GEORGETOWN COUNTY, SC 80 70 60 o 50 z4 30 40 0 ~ 30 10 a- 20 10 6 7 HORRY COUNTY, SC Boo 800 600 e 500 0 400 O0 -J 3 300 a. a.. 200 100 o 0 1 O 0 0 10 END OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTIES 68 SRUNSWCK COUNTY, NC so 80 40 60 to Boo 7i0 Q 50 40 a z 400 0 4 200 -J 0 20~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ -0 I I 606 800 63 00 a, 20 2 00 0tr I- oo o -Ju R ~ c% , o ~~~~~~~~~ 300 0.., o 0~~~~~~~~~ a-* n 200 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 100 ~ ~ ~ 6 PENDER COUNTY, NC 80 70 60 20 I 50 o O 70 z400 3O 00 a. 20 io ~ ~ ~ i 100 0 5 o 0 0 1 0~ 0 to -W L 0~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ I o S aO 7 0 800 700 600 c 500 0 400 1)300 0 200 100 0 z I~~~~ 0 0 0 I iI 0 - - 0 0 I rIn z o -~ I CARTERET COUNTY, NC so TO so o 50 z 40 30 10 4 -J 20 co so 3 I Z~~~~~~ 40 o j ff o i- L4o ~ $ ~ -I;~,,c P#MUCO COUNTY, NC 80 70 10 0 :40 ~ 30 0 0.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l 20 I0 0 - ~ WI, In 71 BEAUFORT COUNIY, NC so 80 20 60 so 7 50 so 0 z 40 0 a. 20 10 o 0 0o 0 0 0t 0 o Cd ~~. o I-~~~~~~~~~~~. it - I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I's 7 2 HYDE COUNTYb, NC so 70 o 5 ~ 0 z 40 20 130 0 O~~~~~ i I I o ~ ~~~ I I I~ 72 DARE COUNTY, NC so 80 To 60 o 50 50 z 40 1= 30 L 0 C- 20 10 05 It~ l I Z I a) Ir 0) G)Ihr) 'i 0 (J AW U) - -nn, cm (jin * TYRRELL COUNTY, NC S *0 KD 0 -J 7 3 0 ~ t~ I~rc o I 2 I I ~ ~ N I 0~ ~~ I 73 WASHINGTON COUNTY, NC 60- 70 60 so ~ 50 z 40 30 a. 20 00 30 10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 IDERIE OUNT, N 70 ao 0 5 80 ~~~~~~74 O 5 00 3O 0 , a, I I, I 4, 74 CHOWAN COUNTY, NC so TO so 50 z 40 30 20 10 0 a PERQUIMANS COUNTY, NC so 70 so 50 309 IL � 0 (L 40 0 230 00 F" SM, m , Po a.~~~~~ 10 7 5 PASQUOTANK COUNTY, MC so 70 60 o 50 20 10 4 a a aCY n i 0~ ~~~~~~6 I0~~~~~~~ 7 6 * 4* . 1t *! Iw~ -- I 1,~ ~ ~ ~CME CONYN 9 *0 I C 4~ ~ ~ g 3 I~~~7 CURRITUCK COUNTY, NC 70 so 60 Cn o 50 c) 30 z 40 _J 20 0 30 0 0' I, ' I 'i - - I - - | OI IIT� - - I a I zincgml END OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES 77 VIRGINIA SEACH, VA WDEFUEPNOtT MfY, CHONNUDgrED W"~ PFfiCESS MfNE CGUOM P WIM16. 800 700 6 00 00 200 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C -J~~~~~~~~~~T 200 Soo 50 ~~~~4100 800 600 0 ~~~~~~~eve c~~~~~~~~~~ 50 SUFFOLK, CITY, VA (FORMLY NANSEMOND COUNTYI so 70 60 ~i Z 0 o0 240 10 a- 20 I0 o - N f (0 I o- ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VA so 70 60 O 50 0 z 40 30 EL 4 -J 20 10 0 0 7 9 SURRY COUNTY, VA so 70 60 20 O 0 I0 00 630 00 0~ 20 20 10 0 01 0 o o 0 0 * *1 e YORK COUNTY, VA "IOcos nE INCEIMEIDW cITIES OF 1NOTHo AND NEWPORT NEWS MND THE POWER COUNTIES OF ELIZABETH CITY OM WAWICK CITY. 800 700 600 z 400 300 0 400 -o 00 01 100 0A 0 0 0 I 01 0 0 GLOUCESTER COUNTY1 VA 80 70 60 *0 o 50 20 z 40 ~ 30 0 0- 20 10 ,o - go Jr"O 81 do MATHEWS COUNTY, VA 50 70 60 (L 2 50 10 so z 40 O 0 20 10 0 20 ~ ~ ~ 10 o g 0 0 0 Ojia 0 0 0) 0) 0) 0 00j ~ 0 0 MIDDLESX COUNTY, VA U0 70 60 0 50 024 4 10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 30 20~~~~~~8 LANCASTER COUNTY, VA so 70 60 o 50 50 z 40 0 :30 0 a. 20 10- o, a o 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, VA go 70 60 o so A z 40 0 30 a. 20 10-~ o~~ a 0 0 83 WESTMORELAND COUNTY, VA 70 so 70 60 30; 2 50 224n 50 z40 50 ~~~~~~84 -a O O O 30 m O 0.o o , a~go 0 5 0, 20 o 0 0 0 o - u I nn o ~~~ORTHAMPTO CoUNTY, VA 80~ ~ ~~8 ACCOMACK COUNTY, VA so 70 so 50 0 z 40 D 30 0, 20 10 ~~~~~~~~~~IT 0 1 4, 44$ S WORCESTER COUNTY, MD so 70 Z~~~~~~ ~ 40 60 70 60 IL 20 O 5 10 0 00 a-~~ � 20 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 SOMERSET COUNTY, MD so 70 60 o 5Q o F z 40 3O 30 0. 20 I0 0 (NONE) ST.MARYS COUNTY, NC) so so 60 30 oso (0 0 10 ZI 40 0 8 ~ 30 00 20 I0 0~ ~ 4 I 86 CALVERT COUNTY, MD so 70 so U) u 50 0 z 40 0 a. 30 0 IL 20 I00 700 So - 0 5 5 z400 a. 0 0 a. 600 700 600 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~in c 500~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 87 BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD (INCLUDES THE INDEPENDENT CITY OF S*.TIMMOfE) 1000 1400- 1200 01000 'A 2600 0 4 a. 0 Go-- 700 200 o - 4 Y , HA~RFORO COUNTbY, MDP 00--- too 600 0 c 500 a. 400 0 I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c 4 ~ 300 a- 0 a. 200 100 --- 88 CECIL COUNTY, MD so0 70 60 0 Z 40 30 o. 0 o. 20 10 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 (NONE) KENT COUNTY, MD 80 70 60 30 0 -a z 40 20 10 (NONE} 89 QUEEN ANNES COUNTY, MD 8o- 70 0 0 ~ 50 (0 20 O~~~~~~~~~(OE Z 40 0 L 00 CL 2-0 I 0 a-- 0 0o 2 50 I 0 10 * * * m 0 0 (NONE) 0~ ~~9 CAROUNE COUNTY, MD 80 70 60 o 50 U) 0 z 40 30 4 a- a. 20 I0 io~~~~~Tt _ 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0D (NONE) DORCHESTER COUNTY, MD so 70 so *0 a. C 20 z 40 0 0 0 O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O a. 20 I0 0) 0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 (NONE) 91 WICOIAICO COUNTY, MD so 70 so---- 60- o 50 0 30 PO 10 0. (NONE) END OF MARYLAND COUNTIES 92 SUSSEX COUNTY, DE 800 7oo 600 3 500 20 0 c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c 400 2 -J 6 300 a- 0 a- 200 100 0 o o o 0 o o b o * *l KENT COUNTY, DE 800 700 600 If *4 00 0 O~~~~~~~~~(OE 4 300 z 0 a. 200 100 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o - N In t In In I'- I (NONE) 93 NEW CASTLE COUNTrY, DE o800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 o . C. .0 - 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 (NONE) END OF DELAWARE COUNTIES 94 SALEM COUNTY, NJ SO 70 60 r- 5O 20 I0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o -- n in ,p (NONE) CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NJ 800 700 600 c 500 o - z 400 3 300 0 EL 200 . ..100 .. o o o o o o o o - (NONE) 95 CAPE MAY COUNTYNJ so 70 so o 50 Z 40 ~30 0 a. a. 20 10 0 I I ATLANTIC COUNTY, NJ Boo 700 600 z 00 3 500 20 0 (v a v C 400 600 2 00 ',~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T 1 300 9 20 96~9 BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ goo 700 600 10 4 500 I r~~~~~0 400 000 0= 100 Soo2 3Y30 OCEAN COUN~TY, NJ 800 700 a. 200 l oo U) 0 400 4 300/ a- 200 100 T~~~~~~ it 9 7 97 MNMOUTH COUNTY, NJ 800 Goo 600 500 2 400 0 o 300 0 a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a 0.I 200 100 0 40 In * 4. MIDOILE~SE COUNTY, NJ 800 700 a. 600 c 500 0 400 O~~~~~~~~~(OE F 4 3 300 200 100 o 0 0 0 0 a 0, 0) 0 (NONE) 98 HUDSO CMUNTY, Hi Soo 700 600 00 300 2 00 400 0 I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C 100 1200 0 (NONE) BERENCOUTY9N RICHMOND COUNTY, NY B00 700 600 500 40 300 200 10 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IL - - - - ~~(NONE)-- NEW YORK COUTY, MY 3200 2800 2400 �000 0 100 M1200 0 (L 400 0~~~~~~~~~ I 00 KINGS COUNTY, NY 3200 2800 2400 9!000 0 0 -J gooo 4100 I2O 0 31200 a- 800 400 Bo I 100 1 0 I- - - - QUEENS COUNTY, NY 3200 2800 2400 21000 0 1I200 a- 600 400 0 I I * I I 4 *101 NASSU COUNTY, NY 1600 1400 1200 z goo Soo a. 0 a. 400 2400 0100U Z 00 2 C lQO 0 a- 400 200 0 I I 05 0 0 0 0~~~~I O 1400 ~ ~ ~~10 BRONX COUNTY, NY 1600 1400 1200 r, 01000 zeo /o 0 -J ~600 0 anSo 400 200 O ~~ 0U 101 0 V 0 0e 0 o, I o, oi-, I -, - -, - I Is * * WE~STCHESTER COUNTY, NY Goo 7 00 600 0 a. 200 r~ 400 2 k -J ~ 300 0 0~~~~~~~~~~~ 200 100 0 I I 41 4oIo 0 , 0 , 0 0 10 I 5 0 0 0 0 I I 103 NEW LONDON COUNTY, CT 800 700 600 = 500 0 400 2 F D 300 a 0~ 200 700- I j I H o~~ ~ 4 o 0 O tt t * MIDDLESX COUINTY, CT G00 700 600 500 a. 0 F IL ~ 300 a.. 200 100 0 I 4 a a, to~~U, , U, Cd 104 NEW HAVEN COUNTY, CT 700 700 600 300 a. (0 oo 0 4 300 a- o i a- 200 100 (0 FARFED OUT, CTo (0~~a( c 00 60 00 2400 oI a- 200,r 100 0 , 0) 0~~ 0) 0S D 105 NEWPORT COUNTY RI 800 700 800 Soo c 500 400 0 4 ~ 300 200 loo 0 200 100 50 Z~~ 40 L ~ ~c~- H,,N"PUITO CUTY I C a0 70 10 06 soI a- 1 0 I 0 1 o - (U U ) 106 PROVIDENCE COUNTY, RI 800 700 600 500 400 300 a. o a 200 100 O~~~~~~~ I 0 I j I KENT COUNTY, RI 700 V 00 z400 a. 2 300 100 0 0 I 0 200I 100i I I * * * 0~~~~~0 S.SA4INGTON CoUWTY, RI 600 700 600 400 3 500 a 0 t 400 0 -j~~~~~ ~~+ 300 0. END OF RHODE ISLAND COUNTIES 100 ~ ~ ~ 0 9RISTOL COUNTY, MA eoo 700 600 c 500 0o 400 Fo : 300 200 100 too O o * * . . ,if DUKES COUNTY, MA 6 ) z 4 o 3 2 l Iow n I _ ,,, .N , , ~ N 0 I 109 NANTUCKET COUNTY, MA a *0 �rr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o 0 5 go 0 0 0 0 F~~~~~~~~~~~ o ), t~~~~~04V 1 0 0 s0 900 ~ ~ 0 +. 800 6 00 In 20 300 2~~ 0 110 PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MA 800 700 600 500 0 400 z 0 4 -J . 300 0 200 100 0 NOWOLK< COUNTY, MA 800 700 600 40 500 0 'IL 0 400 4 1 300 a- 0 a-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 200 100 0 0 0 0 o 1 0 N I' mW I) Q I 111 SUFFOK COUWNTY, MA. w00 1400 1200 01000 C BooC 0 800 0 0 ~60 0 a. 400 200 - ~~I - I - iI Gooo ESSEX COUNTYP~ MAb 800 400 600 100 0 a 200 400 200~~~~7 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NH 800 700 600 c 500 0 o .- D 300 200 100 o o o o o o o o END OF NEW HAMPSHIRE COUNTIES 113 YORK COUNTY,-ME 800 700 600 4 00 z 0 4M00 0 ~20 1 00 a- 0~~~~~ 200~~~~~~~0 7100 0 800 600 0 0 ~~~~~~~. ~~~~~~140 SAGADAHOC COUNTY, ME so 70 60 50 z 40 30 20 lol 3O 0 00 so 210 I0 o - , o UNCOLN COUNTY, ME: so 60 50 z 40 30 C 50 0 0 o 1~~~~1 I.-~~~~~~~~~H -j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~~~~~30 ~ ~ ~ 1 KNOX COUNTY, ME so 60 O 50 oz4 20 I4 00 O~~~~~~~~~(OE 0 a- 20 0 0 0 ~ ~~~~~~ 0 ) 0 a m (NONE) WAlOB COUNTY, 6E 70 60- In z 40 0 0. 0I I I, I , Z (NONE) 116 HANCOCK COUNTY. ME 80 70 60 0 0 50 02 0 z 40 a 30 50 'a 30 I0 20 o o0 a0 0 0 0 (NONE) WASHINGTON COUNTY. ME 80 70 60 o 50 In 20 00 F 4 u n POa -J, o r ,m ao 30 -5--- a-~ ~ ~~~1 APPENDIX C A TABULAR HURRICANE CLIMATOLOGY BY COUNTIES, TEXAS TO MAINE, 1900-1982 This climatology is a convenient reference for the hurricane history of individual coastal counties as well as for states. it is apparent at a glance when any particular county was last affected by a hurricane. Also, it can be determined whether a hurricane was large or small by the number of counties affected. The severity of a hurricane, of course, is indicated by its Saffir/Simpson Number classification. Another useful feature of these tables is that the time between hurricane occurrences is readily apparent both for counties and states. One point to keep in mind is that while some areas have not experienced a major hurricane during this century, severe hurri- canes have been recorded prior to 1900. Examples of this include Savannah, Apalachicola, and New York City, as indicated below: Savannah: It is obvious at a gla~nce that the Georgia coast has had very few direct hits in this century. However, Savannah was devastated by a severe hurricane (possibly a category 4) in 1893. Apalachicola: Climatology indicates that Franklin county, Florida (which includes Apalachicola), as well as five adjacent counties, has not received a direct hit by a major hurricane in this century. Here again, records indicate that severe hurricanes have affected that area prior to 1900. In the period from 1894 through 1898, three hurricanes moved within 50 miles of Apalachicola. The 1894 hurricane had winds of 120 m.p.h. - a category 3. A total of nine hurricanes moved within 100 miles of Apalachicola during the 13 year period 1886-1898. New York City: Early records indicate that a major hurricane affected the New York City area in 1821. This hurricane possibly - was as severe as the New England hurricane of 1938. However, New York City has not received a direct hit by a major hurricane during the 20th century. In fact, records indicate that the -1821 hurricane is the only major hurricane whose center passed over a part of New York City in the last 200 years. The main point to be illustrated by the above examples of hurricanes prior to 1900 is that no particular area along the Gulf or Atlantic coast of the United States is immune to direct hits b~y major hurricanes, regardless of how the climatology appears to have been in recent years. As indicated in Appendix B, dual symbols were necessary in illus- trating the hurricane climatology. Arrows were used with the graphs in Appendix B, while arrows were not appropriate in a tabular presentation such as in this appendix. The key for symbols (non-arrows) is repeated below along with examples of Saffir/Simpson Scale Numbers as used in this appendix. Key for Symbols * ~~~~~Plain Number -Direct Hit ( ) -Indirect Hit - ~Exiting or Inland * - Forward Speed 30 mph or Greater Examp les 1 - ~Direct Hit by a Category 1 Hurricane (1) - Indirect Hit (or fringe hit) by a Category 1 Hurricane 2 - Direct Hit by an Inland or Exiting (moving from land to water) Category 2 Hurricane 3* - Direct Hit by a Category 3 Hurricane moving 30 mph or more (3*) - Indirect Hit by an exiting Category 3 Hurricane moving 30 mph or more 3,2 - Direct Hits by a Category 3 and a Category 2 Hurricane in the same year, with the Category 3 Hurricane occurring first * - ~~~(3,1,3) - Indirect Hits by Categories 3, 1 and 3 Hurricanes in the same year. Occurrences were in the order listed. E4 - Direct Hit by a Category 4 Hurricane in the eastern part of Monroe County, Florida. (See example in Appendix B) 119 TEXAS LA. miss. ALA FLA. e -Po*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(.. YEAR 4o@% g,.j I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(4 A 3 I'I __ 114111 III I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ it I b A 4 (a (I2i4.'() fil 21 2 f--f --d (1) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I I 2~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2(2 (2) 4 4~ (4 i4 i ( lii~~~(3 1. 1'I .21 CAiI -9 I* I ;I iLi 11 11 (Li Al fil Ifu -fU39()2 3)9 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 I4 M 1() II1I 192~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~33 I __-_ 1 __ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I (3f 192 7 - 3 I I I __ _ (3 L jI 1930~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ A-, ~~~I I I 2 313 2_ __jj2 1 W ro~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _4_ _4 i I -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. -T 5 I I U)I W 1942 (~~~~)i1~~~I1I(1)I(3 I (3).1i7i I 1 0- J3 (2 11 312) I 3 I 3I I~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I Iq~ AD~ 1 ' 11 I BI I fil J I ()I FLORIDA I YEAR d s*#~ ' 0, C' 5 tq , ). d-~~ ~~~ flfl I , - I i I 21~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IM q. (5 ()i 13 (5 ( Q1 IFI I I9 211 (9 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2 -L I.5 1911~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1(1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~9 C II ~~fl12p ~~~~~~I I I f ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I9. 9 I 12I I I 1(2 2 2 (2i 1~~~ ~ ~ 1 (1 3 3 --I--A -It- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(19.1 13 13 I VI I 198? 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I(3 I3 I IF3 IL) 'I I (I) I I I I I3 (I I I'D2 iI iiI IIIIIIII) GA. S.C. N.C. VA. YEAR ~ d Sd )&~ ~~~~~~~~~I -I CHSPAE 1FLKADPRSOT - INEEDIA II_ ~~~~IIil Im I fi t O 0INCLUDES THE INDEPENDENT CITIES OF HAMPTON AND NEWPORT NEWS I -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AND THE FORM4ER COIIHTIES OF ELI12ABETH CITY AND WARWICK CITY. 1919 -4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NOTES NO HURRICANES ARE LISTED 1900 -1923* - I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -I - --T-4- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A_ I I 2 7 -4 T-4- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Hi fll~ 111 19117 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T -~ ---------- 11- 141N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I f fl II I ,HIS I 1 I I I I I I -~-i 4-if- 22e- t MD.. DEL. .- I N C U E T H INE N DT CI~ OFIL~W I I q fi I I I I I - I I 1911~~~ I I I 1913 1 9171 11923 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I f ~~~~~~~~~~~123L N.Y. CONN. /R.I. MASS. NH. ME. smllol, YEAR 1917-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II I _ - -T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i lid8 i t~ U111- 1906~~(P (3 B -1 lx-4m F--0-0 '6 0 I F F~~~-4 4I - 19170i ~ I iq~q I ___1 11 1 1982~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TABLE 5 COASTAL COUNTY POPULATION BY STATES (1980) STATE COUNTY POPULATION STATE COUNTY POPULATION TX FL Cameron 209,680 Escambia 233,794 Willacy 17,495 Santa Rosa 55,988 Kenedy 543 Okaloosa 109,920 Kleberg 33,358 Walton 21,300 Nueces 268,215 Bay 97,740 San Patrico 58,013 Gulf 10,658 Aransas 14,260 Franklin 7,661 Refugio 9,289 Wakulla 10,887 Calhoun 19,547 Jefferson 10,703 Jackson 13,352 Taylor 16,532 Matagorda 37,828 Dixie 7,751 Brazoria 169,587 Levy 19,870 Galveston 195,940 Citrus 54,703 Harris 2,409,544 Hernando 44,469 Chambers 18,583 Pasco 194,123 Jefferson 250,938 Pinellas 728,409 Orange 83,838 Hillsborough 490,265 Manatee 148,442 LA Sarasota 202,251 Cameron 9,336 Charlotte 59,115 Vermilion 48,458 Lee 205,266 Iberia 63,752 Collier 85,791 St.Mary 64,395 Monroe 63,098 Terrebonne 94,393 Dade 1,625,979 Lafourche 82,483 Broward 1,014,043 Jefferson 454,592 Palm Beach 573,125 Plaquemines 26,049 Hendry 18,599 St. Bernard 64,097 Glades 5,992 Orleans 557,482 Okeechobee 20,264 St. Tammany 110,554 Martin 64,014 St. Lucie 87,182 MS Indian River 59,896 Hancock 24,537 Brevard 272,959 Harrison 157,665 Volusia 258,762 Jackson 118,015 Flagler 10,913 AL St. Johns 51,303 Mobile 364,379 Duval 570,981 Baldwin 78,440 Nassau 32,894 125 TABLE 5 (Cont'd) COASTAL COUNTY POPULATION BY STATES (1980) State County Population State County Population GA VA (Cont'd) Camden 13,371 Isle Glynn 54,981 of Wight 21,603 McIntosh 8,046 Surry 6,046 Liberty 37,583 York 302,983 Bryan 10,175 James City 32,633 Chatham 202,226 Gloucester 20,107 Mathews 7,995 Middlesex 7,719 SC Lancaster 10,129 Beaufort 65,364 Northumberland 9,828 Colleton 31,676 Westmoreland 14,401 Charleston 277,308 Northampton 14,625 Georgetown 42,461 Accomack 31,268 Horry 101,419 MD Worcester 30,889 NC Somerset 19,188 Brunswick 33,767 St Marys 59,895 New Hanover 103,471 Calvert 34,638 Pender 22,215 Anne Arundel 370,775 Onslow 112,784 Baltimore 1,442,390 Carteret 41,092 Harford 145,930 Pamlico 10,398 Cecil 60,430O Beaufort 40,266 Kent 16,695 Hyde 5,873 Queen Annes 25,508 Dare 13,377 Talbot 25,604 Tyrrell 3,975 Caroline 23,143 Washington 14,801 Dorchester 30,623 Bertie 21,024 Wicomico 64,540 Chowan 12,558 Perquimans 9,486 DE Pasquotank 28,462 Sussex 98,044 Camden 5,829 Kent 98,219 Currituck 11,089 Newcastle 399,002 VA Princess Anne 262,199 NJ Chesapeake, Salem 64,676 Norfolk Cumberland 132,866 and Portsmouth 857,345 Cape May 82,266 Suffolk City 47,621 Atlantic 194,119 126 TABLE 5 (Cont'd) Coastal County Population by States (1980) ____________________________________________________________________ State County Population State County Population NJ ME Burlington 362,542 York 139,666 Ocean 346,038 Cumberland 215,789 Monmouth 503,173 Sagadahoc 28,795 Middlesex 595,893 Lincoln 25,691 Hudson 556,972 Knox 32,941 Bergen 845,385 Waldo 28,414 Hancock 41,781 NY Washington 34,963 Richmond 352,121 New York 1,427,533 Kings 2,230,936 Queens 1,891,325 Nassau 1,321,582 Suffolk 1,284,231 Bronx 1,169,115 Westchester 866,599 CT New London 238,409 Middlesex 129,017 New Haven 761,337 Fairfield 807,143 RI Newport 81,383 Bristol 469,942 Providence 571,349 Kent 154,163 Washington 93,319 MA Bristol 474,641 Dukes 8,942 Nantucket 5,087 Barnstable 147,925 Plymouth 405,437 Norfolk 606,587 Suffolk 65,142 Essex 633,632 NH Rockingham 190,345 127 NWS NHC 6 A Tropical Cyclone Data Tape for the North Atlantic Basin, 1886-1977: Contents, Limitations, and Uses. Brian R. Jarvinen and Eduardo L. Caso - June 1978 (PB285504/AS) NWS NHC 7 The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes of the Century (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts). Paul J. Hebert and Glenn Taylor - August 1978 (PB 286753/AS) NWS NHC 8 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones 1977. Miles B. Lawrence, Paul J. Hebert and Staff, NHC - March 1979 (PB295702) NWS NHC 9 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones 1978. Paul J. Hebert and Staff, NHC - April 1979 (PB296323) NWS NHC 10 Statistical Forecasts of Tropical Cyclone Intensity for the North Atlantic Basin. Brian R. Jarvinen and Charles J. Neumann - April 1979 (PB297185) NWS NHC 11 A Guide to Atlantic and Eastern Pacific Models for the Prediction of Tropical Cyclone Motion. Charles J. Neumann - April 1979 (PB297141/AS) NWS NHC 12 Modification of NMC Analyses and Prognoses for Use in Statistical Tropical Cyclone Prediction Models. Preston W. Leftwich, Jr. - May 1979 (PB297190) NWS NHC 13 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation Atlantic Tropical Cyclones 1979. Paul J. Hebert and Staff, NHC - June 1980 NWS NHC 14 A Statistical Tropical Cyclone Motion Forecasting System for the Gulf of Mexico, Robert T. Merrill - August 1980 NWS NHC 15 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation Atlantic Tropical Cyclones 1980. Glenn Taylor and Staff, NHC - June 1981 NWS NHC 16 A Compilation of Eastern and Central North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Data. Gail M. Brown and Preston W. Leftwich, Jr. - August 1982 (PB83115444) NWS NHC 17 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation Atlantic Tropical Cyclones 1981. Staff, NHC - November 1982 NWS NHC 18 The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes of this Century (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts), Paul J. Hebert and Glenn Taylor, NHC - January 1983 (PB83-163527) NWS NHC 19 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation Atlantic Tropical Cyclones 1982. Gilbert B. Clark and Staff, NHC - February 1983 (PB83184077) NWS NHC 20 The Miss/Hit Ratio - An Estimate of Reliability for Tropical Cyclone Track Predictions, Preston W. Leftwich, Jr. - April 1983 NWS NHC 21 Annual Data and Verification Tabulation Atlantic Tropical Cyclones 1983. Gilbert B. Clark and Staff, NHC - January 1984. NWS NHC 22 A Tropical Cyclone Data Tape for the North Atlantic Basin, 1886-1983: Contents, Limitations, and Uses. Brian R. Jarvinen, Charles J. Neumann, and Mary A. S. Davis - March 1984 NWS NHC 23 Frequency and Motion of Western North Pacific Tropical Cyclones. Zongyuan Xue and Charles J. Neumann - May 1984 NWS NHC 24 Hurricane Experience Levels of Coastal County Populations - Texas to Maine - June 1984 NOAA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was established as part of the Depart- ment of Commerce on October 3, 1970. The mission responsibilities of NOAA are to monitor and predict the state of the solid Earth, the oceans and their living resources, the atmosphere, and the space environment of the Earth, and to assess the socioeconomic impact of natural and technological changes in the environment. The six Major Line Components of NOAA regularly produce various types of scientific and technical information in the following kinds of publications: PROFESSIONAL PAPERS - Important definitive TECHNICAL SERVICE PUBLICATIONS-These research results, major techniques, and special in- are publications containing data, observations, in- vestigations. structions, etc. A partial listing: Data serials; Pre- TECHNICAL REPORTS-Journal quality with ex- diction and outlook periodicals; Technical manuals, tensive details, mathematical developments, or data training papers, planning reports, and information listings. serials' and Miscellaneous technical publications. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS - Reports of preliminary, partial, or negative research or tech- nology results, interim instructions, and the like. ALS Aaye aagnrlypeetdi h form of maps showing distribution of rainfall, chem- CONTRACT AND GRANT REPORTS-Reports ical and physical conditions of oceans and atmos- prepared by contractors or grantees under NOAA phere, distribution of fishes and marine mammals. sponsorship. ionospheric conditions, etc. PJ MOSP, 2' ____ � Z. ________ Information on availability of NOAA publications can be obtained from: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE INFORMATION CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 3 6668 00002 9373