Anthropogenic Amplification of Storm Surge Damage in the 1935 “Labor Day” Hurricane

Chapter
Part of the Coastal Research Library book series (COASTALRL, volume 1000)

Abstract

On Labor Day, September 2, 1935, the most powerful hurricane in U.S. history (Herbert et al. Greatest storms of this century (and other frequently requested facts) NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-31, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C, 1992) made a landfall in the Middle section of the Florida Keys. At that time, this was a sparsely populated area. However, the 600 World War I veterans engaged in building U.S. 1 had recently increased the population significantly. The hurricane had winds exceeding Category 5 levels 155 miles/h (69.3 m/s) on the Saffir-Simpson Scale (Weatherwise 27:169–186, 1974) and surge levels up to 18 ft (6 m). Superposed wind waves caused damage at much higher levels. Some natives blamed the filling of tidal channels in the building of the Florida East Coast Railway extension in the early 1900s for impounding floodwaters. However, no one has been able to verify their hypothesis or to quantify the degree of tidal prism restriction.

The storm was moving exceptionally slowly at 5 miles/h (2.2 m/s). Normally a slow moving storm draws up all of the warm water above the thermocline and weakens. However, in the Bahamas the slow-moving storm intensified to a Category 5+ event, in 1 day, as it traveled the 100 miles to Florida. Data cited here allows us to explain the exceptional intensification.

A synthesis of archival material, original Florida Overseas Railroad drawings, survivor interviews, meteorological data, and field studies have been used to explain the surge dynamics and rapid intensification in the 1935 hurricane. Filled railroad embankments totally restricted the return flow, while large (12 f. wide) stone piers restricted tidal flow by 19%. As the hurricane moved onshore, the ocean submerged the Keys and surface structures were obliterated. When the hurricane moved off the Keys, offshore winds started to blow the floodwaters back into the ocean. The bay waters in front of the Keys withdrew relatively quickly across the reef. However, the earthen fills blocked the waters behind the Keys and the flow was restricted as it passed between the stone piers of the railroad viaducts. A significant hydraulic head developed on the ocean side of the Keys. Fluid pressure built up steadily on the Gulf side of the fills, and eventually they were breached.

The slow storm movement actually aided in hurricane intensification in this case, the storm moved over the hot waters of the Bahama Platform and then traversed the Florida Straits, underlain by the 900 ft deep, very warm waters of the Florida Current. The lessons from this hurricane are applied to the rapidly developing coastal areas of Tampa-St. Petersburg and similar U.S. coastal sections.

References

  1. Boss SK, Neuman AC (1995) Hurricane Andrew on Northern Great Bahama Bank: insights into storm behavior on shallow seas. J Coast Res Special Issue no.21:24–48Google Scholar
  2. Drye W (2002) Storm of the century: national geographic books. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC, 326pGoogle Scholar
  3. Gallagher D (2003) Florida’s great ocean railway-building the Key West extension. Pineapple Press, Sarasota, 198pGoogle Scholar
  4. Herbert PJ, Jarell JD, Mayfield M (1992) Greatest storms of this century (and other frequently requested facts) NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-31, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 40pGoogle Scholar
  5. Hoffmeister JE, Multer HG (1968) Geology and origin of the Florida Keys. Geol Soc Am Bull 79:1487–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoffmeister JE, Stockman KW, Multer HG (1967) Miami limestone of Florida and its recent Bahamian counterpart. Geol Soc Am Bull 48:175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Houston S, Powell MD (2003) Surface wind fields for Florida Bay Hurricanes. J Coast Res 19(3):503–513Google Scholar
  8. Knowles TN (2009) Category 5 – the labor day hurricane. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, 349pGoogle Scholar
  9. Krayer WR, Marshall RD (1991) Gust factors applied to hurricane winds; preprints:eight international conference wind engineering, Association for Wind Engineering, London, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  10. Powell MD, Dodge PP, Black ML (1991) The landfall of Hurricane Hugo in the Carolinas-Surface winds distribution. Weather Forecast 6:379–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rappaport E (1992) Preliminary report: hurricane Andrew, 16–28 August 1992. National Hurricane Center, Miami, 28pGoogle Scholar
  12. Saffir H, Simpson R (1974) The hurricane disaster potential scale. Weatherwise 27:169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1935) Storm surge washout damage: USACE chart file 3-16-10, 409, dated 21 Oct 1935Google Scholar
  14. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives (1936) Florida hurricane disaster hearings, Report No. 2899, 74th congress, second session, 29 May 1936Google Scholar
  15. Wang P, Beck T, Roberts TM (2011) Modeling regional scale sediment transport and medium-term morphology change at a dual-inlet system examined with the coastal modeling system (CMS): a case study at Johns Pass and Blind Pass. Coastal Education and Research Foundation, West-centralGoogle Scholar
  16. Zhang K, Leatherman S (2011) Barrier island populations along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. J Coast Res 27(2):356–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Earth and Environmental SciencesQueens College of C.U.N.Y.FlushingUSA

Personalised recommendations